This article will provide a thorough timeline regarding our discovery of CRS’ direct participation in the spread of contraception in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It is the third article in a series exposing CRS’ continued and unchanging tactic of silencing critics by dismissing real evidence, denying any wrongdoing, and characterizing the concerned reports of faithful Catholics as “attacks.” In part 1, we provided solid evidence and a timeline regarding the way CRS handled theologian Germain Grisez’s true and valid concerns about a condom-promoting flip-chart produced and distributed by CRS in one of its project areas. In part 2, we examined CRS’ attempt to collaborate with PEPFAR to cover-up it’s contraception promoting programs in Kenya. In this issue, we will prove that CRS attempted to pre-empt our report by poisoning the well against it before it had even been seen, only to then admit involvement while simultaneously attempting to exonerate itself.
Background
In March of 2016, the Lepanto Institute discovered a cache of documents related to a contraception-distributing program involving Catholic Relief Services.
From 2006 to 2010, CRS was an implementing partner in a USAID-funded project called Project AXxes. The lead organization on the project was Interchurch Medical Assistance World Health (IMA World Health), which means that it was the one responsible for conducting the operation, policies, and logistics of the entire project. Found among the project reports were statements regarding the integration and distribution of contraception into all project areas – including CRS’ – with indications that CRS’ project areas received special focus and attention to ensure such distribution was completed.
These inventory reports clearly show that CRS received and was responsible for the distribution of 2.25 million units of abortifacient contraception and condoms in the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to one inventory report, CRS received and delivered 38,234 units of Depo Provera (injectable contraceptive), 27,400 units of Lo-femenal (oral contraceptive), 38,002 units of Ovrette (oral contraceptive), 600 Intra Uterine Devices (the French acronym is DIU), 429,420 condoms, 11,211 female condoms.
After seven months of investigation and analysis – which included a trip to Africa – the Lepanto Institute began preparing a highly detailed report. We met with two African bishops and several active clergy from various African countries to discuss this report, and all of them expressed deep concerns for CRS and its USAID-funded projects.
Evidence Collected
The most damning and direct evidence among the reports were the inventory spreadsheets. The very first report indicating the provision and distribution of contraception by Catholic Relief Services was Second Quarterly Report for Year 1 of the project. Page 9 of this report makes it very clear that each province covered by Project AXxes held “Training of Trainers” (TOT) workshops focused on the integration of contraception with all levels of reproductive health programs. More importantly, the report directly stated that contraceptives “were distributed to the coordination offices and into many of the zones.” This statement was followed by a chart showing that Depo Provera, Ovrette (an oral contraceptive), IUDs, and condoms were send to CRS’s Coordination Office, meaning that CRS received these items directly.
Project AXxes, in collaboration with the IPS in each Provence and the National Program of Reproductive Health, organized a TOT training in which 70 Health staff were trained in the key tenets of reproductive health for future training/restitution of the rest of the health zone caregivers. Topics covered including Behavioral Change Communication (BCC), Safe motherhood, Family planning including artificial and natural methods. In addition, STI management and management of RH commodities topic were covered.
Contraceptives in stock at ECC, PSI and IRH were distributed to the coordination offices and into many of the zones. Unfortunately, some of the Depo-Provera had spoiled because of poor storage conditions so there is currently a shortage in some zones. (emphasis added)
By the third year, CRS’s reception and distribution of abortifacient contraception – as indicated in these reports – increased dramatically. The annexes for the first quarter report for year three (Oct.-Dec. of 2008) shows CRS receiving and distributing tens of thousands units of Depo Provera, Lo-femenal, Ovrette, IUDs, hundreds of thousands of condoms, and even surgical sterilization kits.
What’s extremely important to understand about these inventory reports – especially the reception of contraceptives at CRS’ Coordination Office – is that the procedures manual for the project explains the degree of involvement in the shipment, reception, and distribution of all commodities. The procedure requires an administrator/manager of the project, a logistician, and another member of the team to physically inspect the inventory and account for each item – and at the end, the inventory list is to be signed by two people: the owner and the person responsible for the inventory. Beginning on page 19, under “3.4.1 Physical Inventory,” the manual says:
“A physical inventory of the equipment and supplies will be done quarterly. This is to insure that all the equipment and supplies accounted for are indeed physically present.
The inventory will be carried out by a team composed, according their level, of the administrator/manager of the project, the logistician and another member of the team.
A report, duly signed by the members of the inventory team and the manager of the stock, must confirm the inventory. This should be communicated within a reasonable time to those in charge.
The inventory must be based on a codification system to confirm the various levels of the inventory, to establish a standard detailed list of property of the different offices and sites benefiting from the project, to specify the state of the items and to establish a list of property belonging to a third party and held by AXxes. This list must be signed by the owner and the person responsible for the inventory.”
This procedure will become very important when examining CRS’s response to our report. But the very fact that CRS even agreed to participate in Project AXxes is morally problematic due to the fact that the project itself was directed toward the increased use of contraception. A document found on the official website for Project AXxes titled, AXxes Program Description states on the very first page the intention to integrate contraception into “Primary Health Care Interventions.” The top priority identified is “child spacing and reproductive health,” and everything about this component is related to the spread of contraception.
Given that this project’s direct intention was to integrate artificial birth control with primary health care, there is no way that Catholic Relief Services could morally be involved. And to make matters worse, CRS even acknowledged that it knew about this component of the project. Beginning at 0:31 of this 2011 USAID video about Project AXxes, a CRS’s medical coordinator for Project AXxes, Dr. Janvier Barhobagayana mentions the “family planning” aspect of “Component A” mentioned above.
In fact, in this 2010 USAID newsletter, Dr. Janvier said that “access to prenatal care, assisted deliveries, and use of contraceptives all show improvement over the last year.”
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this entire project is it was precisely because of CRS’s participation in it that contraception was introduced to a people who had never had it before. On page 18 of the Year 3 Quarter 1 report indicated earlier is a chart showing CRS outperforming its other partners in the use of “family planning” services and the increase of “child years of protection,” which another way of saying “reduced fertility rate.”
Beneath this chart, the report is jubilant about the increase of “Couple Years of Protection” because in the area for which CRS was responsible (South Kivu) “AXxes is the first partner to develop family planning programs” there:
“The change is most significant in many [Health Zones] (HZs) in South Kivu and Kolwezi HZs which are the areas were the [Family Planning] (PF) activities were not carried out. In those areas, AXxes is the first partner to develop PF programs.”
The full report is 56 pages long and contains all of the damning details and relevant information. But what we’ve illustrated here in this brief summary of our findings proves the following:
- CRS knowingly agreed to work on a project designed to provide and encourage the use of contraception.
- Inventory reports show abortifacient contraception being delivered to CRS’s Coordination Office, and that such contraception continued to be delivered to CRS and distributed within its project area.
- Inventory reports were to be conducted by teams of at least three officials of the implementing partners, who were to visually count all inventory items and sign off on them, meaning all inventory reports regarding CRS could not be a mistake.
- CRS’s medical coordinator acknowledged the “family planning” component of Project AXxes and personally reported that use of contraceptives “show improvement over the last year.”
CRS’s Pre-emptive Strike
On 8 September 2016, the Lepanto Institute sent out an email to our supporters announcing that an explosive report on CRS projects would be published on 7 October. The email made no mention of Africa or any particular country we had investigated, and CRS did not have a copy of our report. Panicked about what we were about to reveal, Abp. Paul Coakley – then chairman of the CRS board of directors – sent a letter to his brother bishops on 29 September.
Characterizing the upcoming report as an “attack” in his letter, Abp. Coakley stated that CRS was prepared to deal with the new report when it is published. Of the report he had not yet seen, he said he expected it to “lack a relationship with the truth.” He then attached to this letter – as “evidence” that our report will “lack a relationship with the truth” – two letters of support, one from the bishops of Kenya and the other from the bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo “who are aware that Hichborn has been digging into CRS’ work in their countries.” Abp. Coakley then closed his letter with a canned statement for bishops to use should they receive inquiries about this report.
Effectively, Abp. Coakley was engaging in a tactic called “poisoning the well,” meaning he was intentionally working to sway opinion against the upcoming report so that it would be more easily dismissed by his brother bishops when it was published. The fact that he knew we were looking in Kenya and the DRC was interesting since we never said anything publicly about either of those two countries. We had spoken to a few bishops and priests while Hichborn was in Kenya, but the report had not yet been provided to anyone.
What is particularly interesting was that CRS felt compelled to obtain letters of support from the bishops of Kenya and the DRC to provide as “evidence” that our forthcoming report would be false, since none of those bishops had yet seen the report. But what was even more intriguing was that both letters were identical – meaning, they came from the same source. This strongly suggests that CRS basically provided both bishops’ conferences with the suggested wording they wanted, and the bishops’ conferences copied and pasted that wording into their own letters. The following is a side-by-side comparison of the two letters, underlining the portions where the wording is exactly the same:
These letters show a clear intention to undermine and discredit a report before knowing anything about it or its contents.
CRS Responds to the Report
The report on Project AXxes was published on 17 October – 10 days after it was originally intended to be published. On the VERY SAME DAY the report was published, Abp. Coakley sent another letter to his brother bishops admitting that CRS had indeed been involved in the project, that it did involve contraception, and that it did “appear” from the reports that CRS was involved in the distribution of contraception. Abp. Coakley further complains that pastors were beginning to refuse to support CRS collections due to our reports, saying that “the Lepanto Institute is prevailing,” before asking his brother bishops to encourage their priests “not to accept” what our reports indicate.
The first question to ask is how CRS could possibly have “thoroughly investigated” (as Abp. Coakley claimed CRS would do) the contents of our 56-page report within a few hours of the report having been published. The second question is simply this: How could the reports have falsely indicated that CRS received contraception at its Coordination Office – and for the next four years indicate that CRS received and distributed 2.25 million units of contraception – if the procedure set in place required visual inventory inspections signed in triplicate by the implementing organization? And most importantly: How can Abp. Coakley use a letter sent by the Congolese bishops, which was clearly pre-prepared by CRS before CRS or those bishops had seen the Lepanto report, as a post hoc indication that “the work of CRS in their country has been consistent with Catholic teaching”?
The formal response from CRS (which was also published on the CRS website and alluded to by Abp. Coakley in his letter) is even worse. While CRS’ public statement chose to reduce the gravity of the report by identifying the Lepanto Institute merely as “a blogger,” and echoed Abp. Coakley’s talking points indicated above, CRS fatally admitted to the distribution of contraception within its project area.
The statement clearly says: “The contraceptives in question were delivered to the geographic area where CRS worked.” Even if we were to concede the claim that CRS did not house and distribute the contraceptives (and we do NOT concede this point), this critical admission proves that CRS was working to allow those contraceptives to be distributed to its project area. Remember, in South Kivu, where CRS was operating, family planning programs had never been developed prior to Project AXxes. This means that CRS was the one to open the means for USAID to spread contraception to those people for the first time. Had it not been for CRS’ participation in Project AXxes, the poor people of that region would not have been introduced to contraception.
Something else to note from CRS’ response was that CRS obtained a letter from IMA World Health president Richard Santos that was dated 5 October 2016 – twelve days prior to the publication of our report. Since CRS didn’t already have a copy of our report, then how could Santos be clarifying matters related to it? Worth noting is that CRS provided a quote from Santos’ letter indicating that “CRS was very clear with all parties that it would not engage in any activities that were contrary to Catholic teaching and that it would not promote such activities to its local Catholic partners,” but failed to provide the full letter in its public response. The full letter from Richard Santos provides a few peculiar statements.
The first point of interest is that Santos claims to be able to “personally assure” that CRS was not engaged in any of the activities related to contraception and that it has been clear about this “from the beginning of the project.” Bearing in mind that Project AXxes ran from 2006-2010, it seems odd that Santos – who only began work with IMA World Health in October of 2009 – would be able to “personally assure” anyone about what CRS was doing with Project AXxes “from the beginning.”
Santos’ Linkedin profile, indicates that he became the CEO of IMA World Health in October of 2009, and prior to that he worked for International Relief and Development.
Santos wasn’t even at IMA World Health when Project AXxes began in 2006, and since he came to IMA World Health as the project was ending, it is very strange indeed for him to provide his “personal assurance” that CRS was “very clear” about its refusal to engage in contraceptive activities “from the beginning.”
But then, Santos said something else that is rather significant. He said that CRS was required to “report on family planning activities in their assigned health zones.” This line reinforces CRS’s knowledge and willing permission for the distribution of contraception in their project area.
By way of analogy, what CRS ADMITS to doing here is akin to a school principal allowing an abortion clinic to set up shop on school grounds, and report on the number of girls obtaining abortions, while maintaining that he refuses to have anything to do with the abortions directly. This is an absolute admission of complicity in the contraceptive program of Project AXxes.
Finally, in CRS’ “refutation,” they complained that we didn’t come to them first with our findings. CRS wrote:
“A simple query to CRS would have provided clarification of the report but the blogger didn’t approach CRS with his concerns. CRS has been very clear with this blogger over the years that we welcome constructive dialogue about our work. However, these attacks are not constructive or offered as such.”
As can be seen in the first two parts in this series, CRS has a historic pattern of taking information presented to them in good faith, and then using that information to cover their tracks and gaslight those concerned. They did it to Germain Grisez regarding the condom-promoting flip-charts he discovered, and they did it to Steve Mosher, Population Research Institute and us regarding CRS’s contraception-promoting programs in the SAIDIA project in Kenya. We chose to publish this information without showing it to CRS because CRS has never taken the information in good faith, and when confronted with real hard evidence, has never once provided any evidence to refute it. They simply attempt to explain it away. This time, we chose not to give them the opportunity to cover-up the information before the report can reach the hands of the faithful.
And given the fact that Abp. Coakley and CRS attempted to pre-emptively discredit our report with pre-written statements from the bishops of Kenya and the DRC, we were well justified in our reasons.
On 25 October 2016, we responded to CRS’s “refutation.” Among the points we made in our response (several indicated in this article), we also pointed out the following:
In its response, CRS said:
“CRS did provide natural family planning as part of Project AXxes with the distribution of cycle beads, as befits a Catholic organization working to improve the health and wellbeing of mothers and their young children.”
So, CRS is admitting to implementing the NFP programs of Project AXxes. Keep in mind that AXxes made it very clear that the spread of contraception and the permeation of the “message” of family planning would run throughout the entire project. What AXxes said about the NFP programs was that it was being used as a stepping-stone to introducing women to contraception. Page 8 of the final report for Project AXxes says:
“Moreover, the inclusion of MAMA and MAO [NFP programs] in both counseling and reporting serve to introduce the important concept of family planning and to integrate reproductive health care services at the facility level. Nearly every woman is counseled on MAMA postpartum, and then at her six month visit she is given options for other methods of family planning—a normal step from natural to modern methods.”
On 14 November 2016, we published an open letter to the US bishops regarding CRS’s involvement with Project AXxes. What we told bishops in that letter was that we were not writing it “to defend the report or its findings, but to address the admissions CRS made in response to it.” We wrote:
- CRS is asking Your Eminences and Excellencies, and all the faithful, to ignore four years’ worth of inventory and narrative reports that show CRS intimately involved in the distribution of millions of units of abortifacient contraception and condoms.
- CRS is asking that the written testimony of the head of IMA World Health suffices as refutation to the evidence. It should be noted that IMA’s current head wasn’t even working for IMA World Health while the project in question was being implemented.
- CRS put forth two identical letters, clearly written by CRS, from the Bishops’ Conferences of Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo to support the assertion that the Lepanto Institute’s report is wrong. These letters were obtained weeks before the Lepanto Institute report was even published.
More to the point, CRS’s response to the report makes two stark admissions, showing that it was in fact in proximate material cooperation with the distribution of contraception.
- CRS admitted that it was an implementing partner in a project that distributed abortifacient contraception to health centers and hospitals for which it was responsible.
- CRS admitted that it implemented a natural family planning program in a project that was using these programs as a way to introduce Congolese woman to abortifacient contraception.
At the end of the letter, we asked the bishops:
“to bring CRS into full conformity with Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio on the Service of Charity, forbidding it to receive or provide funds to agencies that promote abortion, contraception or sterilization, and to forbid it from participating in projects where any of these grave moral evils play a part in any way. And if CRS is unable or unwilling to follow the directive of the Church, as instituted by the Vicar of Christ, then we ask you to enact Article 11 [which would prohibit CRS from using the title “Catholic” in its name].
Unwittingly, our open letter was sent to the US Bishops during the annual assembly of the USCCB – and in fact, was sent at the very same time Dr. Carolyn Woo was delivering her farewell address. After Dr. Woo closed her presentation, to a standing ovation from the USCCB bishops, Abp. Coakley got to the podium to address our open letter to the bishops, asking them not to “give credence to the relentless insinuations and allegations of this particular blogger.”
Conclusion
There is absolutely no doubt that Catholic Relief Services, from 2006-2010, willingly participated in Project AXxes, despite the clear intention of the project to not only spread contraception to vulnerable people, but to be the first to introduce it to those people. There is also no doubt that Catholic Relief Services had some hand in the acquisition and distribution of contraception within its own project area, even if it was not directly responsible for such after the initial delivery of contraceptives to its Coordination Office. Furthermore, there is no doubt that even the promotion of natural family planning – which Catholic Relief Services claims was its only involvement in family planning programs within Project AXxes – was deliberately used as a steppingstone for introducing artificial contraception to the vulnerable people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Prior to the publication of this report, Abp. Coakley attempted to poison the well by suggesting that the Lepanto Institute promotes falsehoods and by presenting two identical letters from the bishops of Kenya and the bishops of the DRC claiming that CRS’ work is in line with Catholic teaching. The letter from the Congolese bishops would later be used as post hoc evidence that our report on Project AXxes was false.
In attempting to “refute” our report on Project AXxes, Catholic Relief Services actually admitted that it permitted contraception to be distributed among the people for which it was responsible. And worse still, CRS was “required” to report on the use of said contraception that it allowed to be distributed among its people.
And finally, unable to produce any counter evidence beyond the letter from the CEO of IMA World Health, who wasn’t even employed by IMA during the time of the project, Abp. Coakley and CRS asked the bishops of the United States and faithful Catholics all across the country to ignore what is clearly printed in 4 years’ worth of reports.
In 2008, CRS absolutely and clearly attempted to smear Germain Grisez and cover-up what he discovered regarding graphic condom-promoting flip-charts produced by CRS. In 2014, CRS collaborated with PEPFAR to hide its promotion of contraception-pushing programs in Kenya. Considering those in conjunction with the active cover-up and outright lies regarding Project AXxes, what emerges is a pattern of deceit intended to prevent the truth about CRS’ involvement with contraception-promoting projects from getting out.
Thanks, Michael, for this thorough breakdown of Project AXxes. Much appreciatef