Catholic Relief Services: A History of Lies and Cover-Ups Pt. 1

As the USCCB prepares to pass the basket for Catholic Relief Services this weekend, Catholics have a right to know what they’re being asked to support: nearly two decades of deception, cover-ups, and blatant contradictions of Church teaching by an agency trading on the Church’s name while undermining Her mission.  In this first of a series of reports, we will focus on the first very public case of CRS being caught promoting condoms.  While this took place in 2008, it is a relatively unknown and key piece of evidence in a consistent pattern of deception on the part of CRS as it hides the truth of its active role in the promotion of condoms and abortifacient contraception.  Furthermore, this article is the first complete analysis of what really happened when Dr. Germain Grisez sounded the alarm on a CRS owned, produced and distributed flipchart.  The evidence will show that CRS and its handlers misrepresented the facts, twisted the evidence brought against them, and even gave completely false testimony about who owned the material in question.

Subsequent articles in this series will not only reveal that the same tactics used by CRS in 2008 to cover-up its illicit and immoral activities are a standard practice, but that with each new revelation of what CRS is REALLY doing, its excuses and manipulations of the truth become increasingly more outlandish and intellectually insulting.

2008 Condom Flipchart Scandal

In 2008, the noted theologian Germain Grisez wrote a blistering revelation regarding a flipchart, created and distributed by CRS, which openly promoted the use of condoms.  Prior to the publication of his article, Grisez wrote to Abp. Timothy Dolan (then archbishop of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and chairman of Catholic Relief Services), alerting him to the pending article and explaining some of the relevant aspects of it.  You can read that letter here.

In response, Abp. Dolan thanked Dr. Grisez for the information, promised to have the materials reviewed by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, and the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, asking Grisez to delay publication of his article until such review is completed.  You can read that letter, here.

Dr. Grisez responded to Abp. Dolan by email, indicating that the article had already gone to print, and though he does laud him for taking some action, he expressed concern to the archbishop that he didn’t think it would be enough.  Grisez then reiterated his concern that CRS was distributing materials that “its officials judge must not bear CRS’ name or logo [while simultaneously judging that it] does not violate Church teaching.”  You can read that email, here.

There is no record of any further correspondence between Abp. Dolan and Dr. Grisez until after Abp. Dolan sent a letter to his brother bishops on April 23.  In this letter, Abp. Dolan misrepresented what Grisez wrote in his article and even wrote some factually untrue statements.  As will be explained later on, it also seems that Abp. Dolan didn’t even write the letter, himself.  Here’s the letter:

We’ve underlined key portions of Abp. Dolan’s letter because they are egregiously inaccurate, to the point of doing grave harm to Dr. Grisez’s reputation.  In the first instance, Abp. Dolan claims that Dr. Grisez accused CRS of failing to adhere to Church teaching, when this is not the case.  Dr. Grisez responded to this particular claim in his next letter to Abp. Dolan (later in this report).

But there are three key portions of this letter which posit claims that are demonstrably false.  Abp. Dolan claims that:

• “CRS’ failure to put its logo” in the flipchart in question signifies a distancing “from Church doctrine by omission.”
• CRS does not “promote, purchase, or distribute condoms.”
• The flipchart in question does not belong to CRS, but to the Government of Zambia.

To address these claims by Abp. Dolan, we will turn to an October 2007 letter, written by Jared Hoffman, CRS’s (then) AIDSRelief Chief of Party, to CRS’s subpartners in the AIDSRelief project.  Grisez used this letter in his initial article on the subject to make his case.

We’ll begin with Abp. Dolan’s third assertion – that the flipchart does not belong to CRS, but the government of Zambia.  As underlined in red, however, it is plain for all to see that CRS explicitly claims ownership of the flipchart.  Hoffman wrote, “Creative Services has the ability to make changes and CRS has ownership rights of the document.”  What Abp. Dolan wrote to his brother bishops was patently and demonstrably false.

Now lets look at Abp. Dolan’s first assertion – that CRS merely failed to attach its logo and name to the flipchart.  This wasn’t a simply “omission” as CRS very willfully and firmly commanded that the CRS name and logo were not to appear on the flipchart.  CRS even explained explained why that is.  Hoffman wrote:

“CRS has chosen not to include the CRS or AIDSRelief logo on the flipchart, due to the potential sensitivity of the information contained in these materials among Church partners.”

Right here, CRS acknowledged the moral “sensitivity” of the flipchart in question, later walking its partners through potential difficulties should they “decide to share the flipchart with Catholic partners.”  This suggests that CRS had no intention of sharing the chart with Catholic partners, but was more than happy to allow its subpartners to do so.  In fact, the letter closes with this:

“If you are concerned about the reactions of the Bishops and the Church in your country, we would be glad to provide you with support in presenting this information to your partners.”

Here, CRS is acknowledging the potential for blowback from bishops, suggesting that CRS could assist in circumventing the bishops to present the flipchart to local partners.

What this illustrates is that CRS was fully aware of the moral difficulties regarding this flipchart, and they were actively hiding its own role in the flipchart’s creation and distribution.  It also shows a prideful cunning as it provides a means of navigating around bishops and other concerned members of the Catholic community.

So, what about Abp. Dolan’s second point – that CRS does not “promote, purchase, or distribute condoms.”  This claim is made several times in Hoffman’s letter, while also repeatedly claiming that this flipchart “is consistent with CRS policy.”  But the second paragraph of Hoffman’s letter tells a different story.

In the midst of CRS claiming not to promote the use of condoms, in paragraph 2, Hoffman fully admits that this new CRS-owned flipchart “now incorporates comprehensive prevention information, i.e. ‘A’ and ‘B’ in addition to information on ‘C’.”  In other words, the information on “C” (meaning condoms) was not in previous iterations of the flipchart, which means that CRS put it there.  As damning as this is, it is far more important to examine precisely what it is that CRS put into the chart, which was not in it before.

The entire flipchart is available here, but it suffices to produce just a few slides to prove that CRS is absolutely promoting the use of condoms.  The word condom shows up in the flipchart 63 times out of 230 pages.  The first mention is in the table of contents, and then on page 23, where the chart addresses “How HIV is transmitted,” showing a couple in bed, the words “Sex without a condom” underneath.

Page 28 encourages “Safer Sexual Behavior,” through “Safer Sexual Expressions.”  Suggesting mutual masturbation (without saying it), this slide encourages a couple to “discuss how they would like to express themselves sexually; remember that sexual intercourse is not the only way to be affectionate between partners.”  The “safe” part of the behavior is to ensure that semen and vaginal fluids do not enter into the “anus, vagina or the mouth of the partner.”  But at the end of the list is the simple statement that condoms reduce the risk of transmission of HIV, STIs, and HIV re-infection, a message repeated over and over throughout the flipchart.

Page 45 shows a man and a woman opening a male and female condom, respectively, with the words “referrals for condoms” at the top.  The page following this not only encourages condom use, but commands the instructor to “explain to the client where condoms are available and where they can get more information.”

Page 47 provides a fully graphic, step-by-step instruction on how to use a male condom.

Page 48 explains the step-by-step instructions, ending with the command to the instructor to tell the client where to get condoms.

Page 49 provides a similar series of instructions for women on how to insert and use a female condom.

On page 52, CRS provides a testimonial from a client who found herself to be HIV positive, and was instructed on the use of condoms.  It’s bad enough that she and her husband are being encouraged to sin by using condoms, but in her testimony, she advertises for the various fruity scents condoms come in, making sex with condoms more enjoyable.  And worse still is that she positively discusses the practice of mutual masturbation, which is gravely sinful!

CRS cannot truthfully claim that it does not promote the use of condoms!

This flipchart, which CRS both owned and distributed, makes 63 positive references to condoms, commands instructors three times to tell clients where they can obtain condoms, provides step-by-step instructions on how to use condoms, and even gives testimony to the “pleasure” derived from various scents the condoms come in while also encouraging partners to engage in mutual masturbation.  And all of this in the midst of repeated messaging that condoms reduce the risk of contracting HIV.  But the coverup on the part of CRS doesn’t end there.

Following the publication of Germain Grisez’s article, “A Church Betrayed?” executive vice president of CRS Michael Weist left a comment where the article was published at Ignatius Press’ blog, Insight Scoop.  Insight Scoop reposted the comment left by Mr. Weist, and after some discussion in the comments section, Weist provided additional information.  What is fascinating about these comments left by Weist on April 4, 2008, is that the underlined portions in red are almost verbatim what was said by Abp. Dolan in his letter to his brother bishops (see above).

Weist’s comments on Insight Scoop were posted nearly three weeks prior to the letter sent by Abp. Dolan to his brother bishops on April 23.  Germain Grisez saw Weist’s comment and, responding that same day, noted that Weist attempted to distance ownership of the flipchart away from CRS, placing the ownership squarely on the shoulders of the government of Zambia.

It would be nearly two full months before Grisez was made aware of the letter sent by Abp. Dolan to his brother bishops.  In a response dated 12 June, Grisez pointed out many of the same falsehoods (and more) indicated in Abp. Dolan’s letter.  But his statement at the end is a scathing rebuke of CRS’s modus operandi, which appears to be to provide pre-written material or talking points for the bishops to simply parrot to their brother bishops and to the lay faithful.  Click here to read Grisez’s full letter, but here is what he wrote at the end:

My reputation as a scholar depends on people’s believing that I am competent, careful about truth, and fair to those I criticize. The statements about me in the second paragraph of your letter will destroy my reputation as a scholar with anyone who believes them. My reputation with bishops as a Catholic scholar in theology is especially important to me. You sent your letter to your “Brother Bishops.” I do not think you deliberately intended to defame me. Indeed, I suspect that your letter was drafted by Michael Wiest or some other CRS official. (emphasis added)

So, as your brother in our Lord Jesus, I ask you to realize that you have wronged me and hope that you will agree to rectify the injury by sending another letter to every bishop in the United States correcting the false statements about me and arrange that this new letter, like the one of April 23, be publicized by CNS. To ensure that your new letter is adequate, I request that you allow me to review it before sending it or, if you prefer, that you allow me to draft it for you.

Germain Grisez saw what we just pointed out – that much of verbiage in Michael Weist’s comments on Insight Scoop are nearly identical to what was stated in Abp. Dolan’s letter.  There is no indication that Grisez’s requests for a public correction of the record were ever met.  On the 21^st of July, Abp. Dolan sent a hand-written note to Germain Grisez walking back some of what was contained in his April letter to his brother bishops, but without ever admitting that CRS had done anything wrong.  His hand-written note can be seen here, but because his handwriting is atrocious, we’ve transcribed the letter below:

Dear Prof. Grisez,

Thank you for your recent letter.  Please pardon me for my tardiness in replying.  I have been on-the-road too much.

I am sorry that our letter to you of April 23, 2008, has led to misrepresentation of your original communication.

Officials at CRS and I very much appreciated your initiative in telling us of your concerns.  It was clear to us that you have a lot of respect for the CRS apostolate, and simply wanted to make sure it remains true to its Catholic identity and mission.

You will be pleased to learn that the USCCB committees on Doctrine and Pro-Life agree with many of your concerns as well.  I have instructed that the document that caused your original consternation no longer be distributed by CRS, and that the policies and praxis of CRS on this (unintelligible) be reformed in line with the USCCB recommendations.

My eventual correspondence with my brother bishops will make clear our debt and gratitude to you.

With prayerful best wishes, I am,
Faithfully in Christ,

Timothy M. Dolan

A week later, Abp. Dolan sent another letter to his brother bishops announcing that the flipchart in question would no longer be in circulation after several USCCB committees, members of the CRS staff, and the National Catholic Bioethics Center took four months to review what was prima facia gravely immoral material that CRS should never have created or distributed in any way.  Abp. Dolan’s final letter can be seen here.

What is plain here is that CRS – of its own volition and without any coercion – updated a flipchart by ADDING information on condoms, while repeatedly stating that this addition was in line with CRS policy regarding condoms.  What else is plain is that CRS had the wherewithal to realize that there were serious moral problems with this flipchart – problems serious enough to order that CRS’ name and logo should never appear on the chart, despite the fact that CRS OWNED the flipchart.

Furthermore, once the cat was out of the bag, CRS went into damage control by attempting to subtly alter the conditions surrounding the flipchart and the arguments being made against them.  These twists of fact appear to have been orchestrated by Michael Weist, who wrote them out in a comment several weeks prior to a letter bearing the same claims which went out under Abp. Dolan’s name.  And even after all the cards were set on the table, Abp. Dolan and CRS still maintained a sanitized version of events, and by forbidding further use or distribution of this flipchart, hoped this little episode would simply fall into the memory-hole so that CRS can continue to maintain its undaunting mantra that “CRS does not finance, distribute, or promote condoms.”

But as we will see in the next part of this series, not only does CRS promote condoms – it has been responsible for their distribution as well.  Stay tuned for Part II …