Last week, we provided an in-depth analysis of Catholic Relief Services’ (CRS) egregious lies and misdirection regarding a condom-promoting flipchart CRS produced and distributed in 2007. Click here to read part 1 of this series.
In March 2015, the Lepanto Institute and Population Research Institute published a 56-page report proving that CRS promoted contraception and condoms through a PEPFAR-funded project called “Support and Assistance to Indigenous Implementing Agencies” (SAIDIA). The report focused on materials used by CRS and its partners, especially a program called “Healthy Choices II.” But there is an old saying that “the coverup is worse than the crime,” and after CRS was caught, it went into overtime to conceal its wrongdoing.
Background
On March 28, 2014, while at American Life League, I met with Abp. Coakley to discuss concerns with Catholic Relief Services — including its ties to abortion- and contraception-pushing groups like MEDiCAM and COREgroup, involvement with the World Social Forum, promotion of the Millennium Development Goals, and related issues. He promised that he would review the information and reassured me that CRS takes all of this very seriously.
On April 17, LifeSiteNews reported that one of CRS’s partners, Jhpiego (which received $282,000 from CRS in 2012), had received an award from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). According to a press release,
“The award was given to Jhpiego for its four decades of work in creating access to innovative, high-quality family planning and reproductive health services throughout the developing world.”
The next day, CRS responded to LifeSiteNews with a statement about its work with Jhpiego. The response said that the funding for Jhpiego was for the SAIDIA project, with the following explanation:
The grant was focused on caring for people living with HIV and mitigating the impact of HIV and AIDS on affected communities. CRS was responsible for technical leadership in palliative care, basic care and support, care for orphans and vulnerable children, health systems strengthening, abstinence and being faithful programming, and prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS. Jhpiego acted in a supportive function by checking data and patient records. Jhpiego was aware of and abided to CRS policy that all activities within the SAIDIA grant be implemented in line with Church teaching.
…
The money we provide to our partners can only be used for programs in line with Church teaching. CRS money is not used to fund programs inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
My associate and I immediately began investigating the SAIDIA project — and found problems. One of the first things we found was a PEPFAR document, the “Kenya Operational Plan Report FY 2012,” describing the CRS-led SAIDIA project — in direct contradiction to CRS’s statement to LifeSiteNews. In this document are multiple references to CRS providing “family planning and reproductive health services” in relation to the project. In fact, several aspects of this description explicitly state that CRS would be providing modern contraceptives and instructions on consistent and correct condom use, as is found on page 150.
After some additional digging, I sent an email to Abp. Coakley on April 23 with the evidence we had gathered to that point, outlining what we discovered about the SAIDIA project, of which CRS said just a week prior: “all activities within the SAIDIA grant be implemented in line with Church teaching.” We never received a response from Abp. Coakley, but CRS did publish a statement regarding the information we provided to Abp. Coakley in our March meeting, even addressing the information we sent him about the SAIDIA project.
One aspect of the SAIDIA project of particular interest to us was discovered AFTER the April 23 email I sent to Abp. Coakley. On page 148, PEPFAR explained that CRS would be implementing a program called Healthy Choices 2 (CH2), targeting teens aged 15-19. What caught our attention was the indication that HC2 provided risk reduction strategies to minimize the “risk of STDs, HIV, and pregnancy by abstaining from sex or using other risk reduction strategies.” Given the context, we suspected “risk of pregnancy” and “other risk reduction strategies” referred to contraception and condoms — without saying so outright. And once we obtained a copy of the HC2 facilitator’s manual, we were horrified!
Out of 255 pages for the HC II manual, condom use is mentioned 335 times on 101 pages and contraception is mentioned 52 times on 15 pages. There are entire exercises directed at getting teens excited about using condoms and contraceptives – including abortifacients – to the point that these teens are told, “You can tease each other sexually while putting on the condom.” We’ve linked the complete HC2 Facilitator’s Manual in the previous paragraph, but we’ve outlined a few key elements in this short document, here. The bottom line is that this document is grossly immoral and there is no way a Catholic organization could have used it without causing grave scandal. But before we published any report on this, we had to be absolutely sure that CRS had indeed utilized this program and this manual in the SAIDIA project.
So, we partnered with the Population Research Institute to send an investigator on the ground to the project area in Kenya to obtain proof. Through the summer and into the fall, we worked diligently to obtain direct and corroborating evidence to generate an air-tight case, proving that CRS’s SAIDIA project was indeed responsible for the promotion of contraception and condoms. On September 24, 2014, after we compiled our information into a highly detailed report, we sent a letter to Abp. Coakley to request a meeting to go over our findings. We wrote:
Your Excellency,
I write to you today on behalf of American Life League, Human Life International and Population Research Institute to request a meeting in order to present further support for information I sent you last April. This finding affects the missions of each of our organizations, as it does the faithful of Kenya and those who support Catholic Relief Services.
As you may recall, I emailed you this past April a preliminary outline of information regarding CRS’ PEPFAR grants for the SAIDIA project and the AIDSRelief project in Kenya. According to this PEPFAR document called “Kenya Operational Plan Report FY 2012,” CRS was responsible for implementing programs which distribute, provide instruction in the use of, and encourage the use of condoms and contraceptives.
Over the summer, our three organizations (ALL, HLI, and PRI) worked together to thoroughly investigate whether CRS actually implemented condom and contraception-promoting programs in Kenya through these projects, and would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss our findings with you at your earliest convenience.
Please let me know a good date and time and we will fly out to see you.
Please know that you remain in our prayers, especially through the obvious spiritual battles taking place in Oklahoma. Thank you for your strong leadership and defense of the Eucharist, and of souls, during the controversy over the black mass.
God bless you, Excellency.
Michael Hichborn
The Cover-up
We never heard back from Abp. Coakley. In the meantime, I left American Life League and launched Lepanto Institute. In November of 2014, I visited the USCCB’s Annual Assembly, and while there I had a chance to meet with Joan Rosenhauer, CRS’s Executive Vice President of US Operations. We discussed the PEPFAR document indicating CRS was promoting contraception and condoms, but I didn’t mention we had on-the-ground confirmation of implementation. She took notes and said she’d follow up — but insisted the government must be mistaken, claiming “CRS has so many checks in place that they would never have accepted a grant to implement programs that go against Catholic teaching.” A few days later, I emailed Joan to enquire about any further information she might be able to provide me. As noted, we gave CRS every opportunity to come clean before going public. Below is that email:
From: Michael Hichborn
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 11:34 AM
To: Rosenhauer, Joan
Subject: Good to see you again
Hi Joan,
I’m glad I had a chance to speak with you at the USCCB meeting earlier this week. Thank you for offering to look into the matter of CRS’ PEPFAR grants for the SAIDIA project and the AIDSRelief project in Kenya. As I said, it was particularly disturbing to see a government document indicate that CRS would be directly responsible for implementing programs that promote all forms of contraception, such as Healthy Choices 2 and Sister to Sister (which is specifically a condom indoctrination program and nothing more). Perhaps, as you suggested, this is a mistake on the part of the government. I look forward to your findings.
There is a sense of urgency in this matter, though, as I have already spoken with a number of media outlets who are waiting for me to publish my findings. Please understand that due to the lack of response I had to this from back in April, I was under the impression that I was being ignored and would not receive a response, so taking my findings public would have been my only recourse. So, I am very happy to have had the opportunity to discuss this with you at the USCCB meeting so that we can clear up any possible misunderstanding. As I said, however, since I have already presented this material to several media outlets interested in publishing a story on this, I will need a response as soon as possible. Do you think you can get an answer to me by the end of next week?
God bless,
Michael
Joan’s brief reply may be the most egregious evidence of a coverup by CRS and PEPFAR.
She wrote:
From: Rosenhauer, Joan
Date: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Subject: RE: Good to see you again
To: Michael Hichborn
Dear Michael:
I reviewed our past email exchanges and spoke with some of my colleagues and could find no new information about the PEPFAR grants in Kenya that we have not already addressed with you.
Here is what we have already sent you:
In the Kenya Operational Plan Report FY 2012, PEPFAR suggested that CRS was involved in activities engaged in by some other PEPFAR partners (e.g. condom promotion) that are in violation of Church teaching. This was not the case. CRS met with PEPFAR in Nairobi a few months ago and PEPFAR apologized for its error and has since corrected the report. CRS continues to adhere to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching and to do God’s work by helping millions of His family’s most vulnerable members around the world, showing a reverence for human life from conception to natural death and at every stage in between.
I am attaching a letter sent to you in October from Archbishop Coakley’s Director of Communications in case it got lost and never made it to you.
In Christ’s peace,
Joan Rosenhauer
Executive Vice President
US Operations
The key claim is that PEPFAR mistakenly identified CRS as implementing programs contrary to Church teaching. The attached letter from Abp. Coakley’s letter was a direct response to the letter we sent to him on September 24, requesting a meeting to discuss our discoveries. The response from Abp. Coakley’s office, dated 3 Oct. 2014 – just nine days after our letter was sent – closed the door on any discussion without even entertaining the possibility that we had obtained information he hadn’t yet seen. And as with the email from Joan Rosehnauer, the letter from Abp. Coakley indicates that the matter was nothing more than a reporting error on the part of PEPFAR, and that the official record had been corrected. This is the letter from Abp. Coakley’s Communication’s Director, Diane Clay:
After receiving the email and letter from Abp. Coakley’s office (which never arrived by mail), I immediately checked what had been altered in the PEPFAR Kenya Operational Plan FY 2012. All references to family planning, condoms, contraception, and the key passages I sent to Abp. Coakley in April were scrubbed from the document. Here is a link to its current iteration on the State Dept. website. The clearest sign of a cover-up was the removal of Healthy Choices 2 from the official record. Below is a cross-comparison showing how it appeared in the original document, and how it appears now.
This deletion of the Healthy Choices 2 program was a glaring red flag! We never mentioned HC2 in any of our correspondences with Abp. Coakley, and the original PEPFAR document didn’t specifically indicate that HC2 was promoting contraception or condoms, so why would PEPFAR delete reference to it? The only reasonable explanation is that CRS knew what HC2 contained and asked that reference to it be eliminated from the PEPFAR document. But here’s the problem: We had tangible proof — the HC2 facilitator’s manual used by CRS’s partners — and online statements confirming its promotion of condoms and contraception. Even Caritas-Nyeri, an allegedly Catholic entity, said that it was implementing HC2 through CRS funding, and that it promoted condom use.
On 22 December 2014, I sent one final letter to Abp. Coakley informing him that we had indisputable proof that what was indicated in the October 4 letter (that PEPFAR simply made a “mistake” and therefore “corrected the record”) was completely false, begging for a meeting to discuss our findings. Here is that letter:
Your Excellency,
Bishop Sheridan and I spoke recently about the latest information regarding CRS that Population Research Institute, Human Life International and I have discovered. While our organizations did attempt to arrange a meeting with you in September to discuss some extremely serious and sensitive information, we didn’t receive a response until after I spoke with Joan Rosenhauer at the USCCB meeting in November. It is the contents of the letter Ms. Rosenhauer sent to us which we would like to discuss.
Your Excellency, I cannot stress enough how sensitive this information is. What I do ask is that you keep the contents of this letter completely confidential. Please do not share this letter with anyone else, especially anyone over at CRS. Should you choose to respond, please do so personally, and not through a secretary. And most importantly, if it is at all possible, please allow us to meet with you in January to discuss the facts regarding what I am about to tell you.
We have confirmation that CRS indeed implemented the Healthy Choices 2 program, which promotes abortifacient contraception, in Kenya. The facts we possess on this matter are irrefutable. However, the letter we received from Ms. Rosenhauer states:
“In the Kenya Operational Plan Report FY 2012, PEPFAR suggested that CRS was involved in activities engaged in by some other PEPFAR partners (e.g. condom promotion) that are in violation of Church teaching. This was not the case. CRS met with PEPFAR in Nairobi a few months ago and PEPFAR apologized for its error and has since corrected the report.” (emphasis added)
We have proof that this statement is false. We also have proof that the PEPFAR document in question was indeed altered. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that individuals working in CRS and people working for PEPFAR collaborated on a cover-up of this information by falsifying government documents. The implications of such dealings are immense, which is why it is so very important for us to meet with you. As I asked, if it is at all possible, we would like to meet with you in January.
God bless you, Excellency.
Because we were working under the advice of Bp. Michael Sheridan of happy memory, I kept him in the loop on our findings and correspondences. As such, Bp. Sheridan was cc’d on the 22 Dec. letter to Abp. Coakley. On 27 January 2015, Abp. Coakley sent an email to Bp. Sheridan, which Bp. Sheridan shared with me. Though Abp. Coakley never responded to our request to meet, he acknowledged to Bp. Sheridan that he indeed received the letter. And rather than address our additional concerns – which he appeared to dismiss out of hand – he instead complained about my recent publication of a report on CRS on a different matter, indicating that neither he nor CRS had advanced notice of the report. The reason for this is simple: After months of attempting to meet with him regarding our discoveries, Abp. Coakley had made it abundantly clear to us that he had no interest in discussing them. As such, I saw no need to provide him with further information. [NOTE: the report indicated had to do with CRS’s test of a contraception and masturbation promoting program called My Changing Body. You can read our reports on that here and here.] This is what Abp. Coakley wrote to Bp. Sheridan:
From: Archbishop Paul S. Coakley
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:24 AM
To: Sheridan, Bishop Michael
Subject: CRS response
Dear +Mike,
I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you a few weeks ago about the concerns Michael Hitchborn [sic] and a few of his colleagues had raised about Catholic Relief Services. As you know he wrote me a letter dated December 22 raising these same concerns. (You were carbon copied on that correspondence). As a matter of fact however, he had written me back in September about the same concerns which I had investigated through consultation with CRS staff. I instructed my Director of Communications, Diane Clay, to respond to his concerns which she did in a letter dated October 4. I am attaching a copy of that letter for your information.
Apparently Mr. Hitchborn has now released new allegations against CRS through social media outlets from his Lepanto Institute. CRS is always concerned when such allegations are raised and these most recent ones are currently being carefully investigated. To the best of my knowledge neither I nor CRS had advance notice of this release.
I just wanted to share with you a little bit of the background.
Fraternally in Christ,
+Paul
Corroborated evidence
Though now defunct, the Caritas Nyeri website at the time of our investigation clearly stated that it received CRS funding, implemented Healthy Choices 2, and through that program provided instruction on “correct and consistent condom use.”
Another CRS partner in the SAIDIA project was the Africa Inland Church (AIC). Archived versions of its website clearly state that CRS (through PEPFAR) funded AIC’s implementation of Healthy Choices (listed as HC).
Further down, AIC explains that HC2 contained 8 modules and was designed “to prevent pregnancy, STIs, and HIV.” The reference to 8 modules becomes important later.
A 2012 archive of the page shows AIC explicitly stating HC2 aimed at preventing pregnancy and promoting consistent condom use.
In addition to documentation showing CRS’s SAIDIA project promoted contraception and condoms through HC2, our field investigator in Kenya obtained further documentary and testimonial evidence.
As documented in our initial 56-page report, our investigator visited CRS’s office and two implementing partners: Kenya Widows and Orphans Support Programme (KWOSP) and the Movement of Men Against AIDS in Kenya (MMAAK). On July 28, 2014, our investigator met with Esther, the secretary at CRS-Kenya, who confirmed CRS implemented Healthy Choices 1 and 2.
On August 4, our investigator visited KWOSP’s HC site at Bester High School and confirmed that the HC2 facilitator’s manual matched the one we found online — including all contraception- and condom-promoting content. He interviewed a 16-year-old boy named Emannuel and a 16-year-old girl named Fariya, both of whom had gone through the HC2 program there, under SAIDIA. Emannuel said his class was taught to use condoms and Femiplan pills. Fariya said HC2 taught them to use contraceptives “to avoid pregnancy and STDs because these were healthy choices.”
On 20 Aug., our investigator spoke with the Regional Coordinator for MMAAK in Nairobi, Philip Nyakwana. Philip told our investigator:
“Healthy Choices taught life skills that would support choices that children make in life. HC1 focused purely on abstinence while HC2 focused included condoms as well demonstrations for condom use.”
Philip added that HC2 was taught in non-Catholic churches, with condom demos held outside. CRS told MMAAK not to bring HC2 into Catholic schools — likely to avoid backlash.
This proves: PEPFAR said CRS was implementing Healthy Choices II through SAIDIA. CRS partners Caritas Nyeri and AIC confirmed it promoted condoms and pregnancy prevention. And this corroborates what the HC2 Facilitator’s Manual we obtained also showed. Additionally, the secretary at CRS’s office mentioned Healthy Choices II, CRS’s implementing partners KWOSP and MMAAK both testified that they implemented HC2 as a part of the SAIDIA project, including the condom and contraception promoting elements. And two students who went through SAIDIA’s HC2 program both testified that they were instructed on the use of contraception and condoms through HC2. In short, removing HC2 from the Kenya Operational Plan was a clear attempt to hide CRS’s involvement.
PEPFAR’s deletion of HC2 to protect CRS is deeply troubling — and CRS’s excuses only became more outlandish after being caught.
CRS is Caught in a Web of Lies
On March 3, 2015, PRI, HLI, and the Lepanto Institute held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to publicize our findings in a newly released report. While we spoke, CRS released a “response” — and a reporter began asking questions straight from it. CRS’s response titled “CRS Responds to False Allegations About Kenya Program” opens with the claim that “After a careful review of the facts, the report’s allegations unravel quickly. They are misleading, exaggerated, and untrue.” The absurdity is obvious: CRS claimed a “careful review” — even though no one else had seen the report before release.
CRS’s first claim is directly contradicted by the report we released that same morning. CRS claimed our report accused it of promoting condoms in Healthy Choices I — and declared, “This allegation is false.” But a real review would’ve shown (pages 26–31) we explicitly concluded CRS and its partners did not promote condoms in that program.
The next point in CRS’s statement calls “false” and “simply absurd” our charge that “CRS and the CDC changed documents to cover up CRS’ alleged involvement in distributing contraception.” But, as we indicated above in CRS’s own statements, CRS spoke to PEPFAR in Nairobi, asking them to “correct” a document that indicates that CRS’s SAIDIA project was involved in the promotion of contraception and condoms. That document was altered — and it removed mention of HC2, which we had never even raised with CRS. And we collected indisputable proof that CRS’s partners were indeed implementing the condom and contraception-promoting components of HC2. CRS may dispute our conclusion, but given the altered public record, it’s not “absurd” to believe CRS worked with PEPFAR to cover up what we uncovered.
And the third point contains the big lie. CRS claimed:
“The report also alleges that CRS was involved in Healthy Choices II, a similar program to version I but aimed at children ages 14-18, which was produced by CDC and the government of Kenya. Under Support and Assistance to Indigenous Implementing Agencies (SAIDIA), CRS’ implementing partners used two out of the four sections (those two which were appropriate and in accordance with Church and CRS doctrine) and did not use the other sections, as they were deemed inappropriate.”
For one, CRS’s own partners confirmed this — both online and in interviews with implementers and students. Also worth recalling is AIC’s implementation of Healthy Choices II, noted above.
AIC noted that HC2 included 8 modules and promoted condom use. But that wasn’t all. Before publishing the report, we obtained hundreds of pages of CRS’s self-reports to the federal government, including documentation on Healthy Choices II.
Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, bearing CRS’s logo, reveal:
- From March 2011 to November 2013, CRS trained facilitators and exposed tens of thousands of adolescents to the Healthy Choices II curriculum — with no indication that it had been modified.
- During the same period, CRS openly stated that Healthy Choices I was modified for promoting condom use — but made no such admission about Healthy Choices II.
- A 2012 CRS grant proposal to PEPFAR shows clear intent to implement Healthy Choices II — with detailed knowledge of all 8 modules, including those on “safe sex.” This directly contradicts CRS’s later claim of using only two.
- In Nov. 2013, after multiple reports showed CRS had facilitated HC2 for tens of thousands of kids, it claimed in its Year 5 report that it was only “made aware” HC2 promoted contraception — and then moved away from it. CRS claimed it only became aware of the issue in late 2013 — despite having the facilitator’s manuals as early as April 2012. That claim defies credibility.
We’ve written a highly detailed report regarding these FOIA documents, which you can read by clicking here. Consider the following evidence from that report.
Pages 136–159 of the FOIA documents contain the CRS-SAIDIA Year 3 Annual Report (Sept. 2010–2011). Among the listed achievements (p. 141), CRS noted that all ten partners were implementing Healthy Choices I and II. CRS also sponsored two “Trainers of Trainers” sessions for HC2, leading to 92 additional trainers. Page 155 shows that 1,664 adolescents were exposed to HC2.
There is no mention of moral concerns about HC2 during this period. In fact, CRS didn’t raise any concerns until Year 4 — and only about Healthy Choices I, the program for children aged 10–14. This strongly suggests those younger students had already been exposed to its condom-promoting content.
From pages 161-205 of the FOIA documents is CRS-SAIDIA’s year 4 annual report. On page 166, CRS wrote that it brought on two more partners who integrated Healthy Choices I and II into their programs. Under the entry for HC1 and HC2, CRS reported that they trained 28 more facilitators for the HC curricula, and in the next paragraph wrote:
“One CRS Staff has been actively involved in the NASCOP HC1 and FMP technical working group (TWG) throughout the reporting period [meaning Year 4]. The TWG was formed to review the HC1 Curriculum which many stakeholders felt was not addressing the core values of HC1 which is to promote abstinence. The TWG is expected to come up with a revised curriculum which partners are expected to start using in year 5.”
Two things stand out here:
- CRS revised HC1 after stakeholders raised concerns about its failure to promote abstinence.
- CRS left HC2 untouched — despite it being far more morally problematic.
On April 27, 2012, CRS applied for a Year 5 continuation grant with the CDC (FOIA pages 325–380). Page 333 states: “The abstinence and being faithful component of SAIDIA uses the evidence-based behavioral interventions of Families Matter! and Healthy Choices 1 & 2 exclusively.”
On page 338, CRS reported that all twelve AB SAIDIA partners (meaning partners promoting “abstinence and Be faithful” interventions) were implementing HC 1 & 2. On the following page, CRS described HC2 as consisting of 8 modules that could be delivered in either 4 or 8 sessions, depending on time allotted for each session. Again, this contradicts CRS’s claim of using only 2 of 4 sections. CRS also acknowledged that adolescents were instructed in “safer sex practices.” It reported exposing 6,080 adolescents to HC2 — again, with no indication that the program had been modified or deemed morally problematic.
From pages 633-664 is CRS-SAIDIA’s Year 5 report. Only in this report is there any indication that there was a moral issue with Healthy Choices II. On page 640, CRS reported exposing 20,001 adolescents to Healthy Choices II, which was 76% of its target. At the bottom of the page, CRS wrote:
“HC II curriculum was introduced in year 4 of the project by CDC and MoH. During the roll out of this new curriculum in year 4 and 5, it came to the attention of CRS that part of the HC II curriculum is not compliant in messaging up CRS family planning policies. Therefore, in year 5, CRS discussed with CDC Kenya and the decision was reached to shift away from using HC II curriculum to FMP instead, which is compliant.”
One problem: the report says HC2 began in Year 4 — but the Year 3 report documented 1,664 adolescents already exposed to it. The more damning evidence is CRS’s recognition of HC2’s moral problems — only after 20,001 adolescents had already been exposed to its gravely immoral content. And again, there’s no record of CRS’s claim that partners used only two of four sections and rejected the others as “inappropriate.” If we take the Year 5 report at face value, CRS didn’t use HC2 selectively — they just dropped it.
A Final Plea
After we published the SAIDIA report, CRS went into damage control. FOIA records also revealed it had implemented a near-pornographic condom-promotion program called Shuga. Unable to deny it, CRS twisted the facts to escape blame. We covered CRS’s use of Shuga in two detailed reports here and here.
We never received any further correspondence from Abp. Coakley regarding our request to meet. Ten days after we published the report on CRS, Steven Mosher of PRI and I sent one last letter to Abp. Coakley summarizing the events leading up to the publication of our report along with our findings and conclusions, asking one last time to meet with Abp. Coakley. We never received a reply. What follows is the last letter we sent to Abp. Coakley on this matter:
16 March 2015
Dear Archbishop Coakley,
On January 30, 2015, at the Legatus Summit in Naples, Florida, one of us—Steven Mosher—personally appealed to you to meet with us so that we could share with you our findings regarding CRS’s SAIDIA project in Kenya. He told you that we had completed an on-the-ground investigation, and had prepared a 56-page report that we intended to privately share with you, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CRS.
You refused to consent to a meeting.
We then contacted every bishop currently serving on the CRS Board of Directors. They also were not interested in meeting, instead directing us to contact you—an avenue that we had already pursued to no avail.
This left us with no alternative but to make our findings public, which we did on March 3 at a press conference at the National Press Club. What else were we to do when those responsible for CRS turned a blind eye to the evidence that we had gathered?
Make no mistake, our investigative report on CRS-Kenya proves—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that CRS implemented programs in Kenya that promoted contraception. Our report relies on documentation and statements from CRS’ implementing partners in Kenya, as well as evidence collected by an experienced field investigator. We believe that it also proves that government documents were falsified in an attempt to hide CRS’s involvement in programs that violate Church teaching.
We enclose a copy of this report and urge you to review it. Indeed, we believe that you have a fiduciary responsibility to do so, since you are collecting money for this organization.
We would remind you that ten months ago one of us, Michael Hichborn, presented a President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Reduction (PEPFAR) document to you which indicated that CRS was responsible for the implementation of contraception-promoting programs in Kenya. The only response he received came some months later from CRS, and it asserted—falsely—that PEPFAR had simply “made a mistake” and was “correcting” the document in question.
But the PEPFAR document wasn’t “corrected,” it was falsified. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we have obtained hundreds of pages of documents that leave no doubt that what took place after we provided you with the original PEPFAR document was a cover-up. The truth is that multiple investigations, relying on multiple sources, demonstrate that CRS implemented contraception-promoting programs through grants from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
As we noted, because you and other bishops on the CRS board would not meet with us, we had no other recourse but to publish our findings.
At that press conference—and to you now—we assert that CRS not only knowingly entered into contraception-promoting programs in Kenya but, when their misbehavior became known, engaged in a cover-up in a clumsy and ultimately unsuccessful effort to hide CRS’ involvement from the American bishops and the faithful—and from you, Archbishop.
There is much more to the story than we have recounted here. As always, we would prefer to share this information privately with you rather than make it public.
As with before, we humbly request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Steven W. Mosher Michael Hichborn
President, President
Population Research Institute Lepanto Institute
Conclusion
This timeline reveals a two-fold problem:
- CRS goes to great lengths to conceal its moral compromises — even from the very bishops meant to oversee it.
- Episcopal oversight relies too heavily on internal investigations that lead to self-exoneration.
There is no doubt CRS colluded with PEPFAR to alter the public record and hide its involvement with HC2. Nor is there any question that over 20,000 young people were subjected to its condom-promoting content. The record confirms it: CRS’s partners corroborated it, and a CRS official and two student participants testified to it. CRS falsely claimed HC2 was altered to remove immoral content — a claim disproven by the testimonies and CRS’s own self-reports. Despite repeated outreach, Abp. Coakley never responded — aside from one letter dismissing our concerns and backing CRS’s cover-up.
If this were isolated, it would be bad enough. But with Dr. Germain Grisez’s findings (see Part 1), a pattern of misdirection, falsification, and lies emerges. The next part of this series will show it plainly: CRS is out of excuses.
Leave a Reply