Speaking up for Truth makes a difference. We thank Jim Welsh for speaking up for us and bringing this to light. But first a little background.
As we approach the Nativity of Our Lord, Catholics in Western Oregon have to keep on discernment caps. The "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development funds have been collected and now we await the Annual Catholic Appeal (ACA) for funds to be used in large part to meet payroll, and Pastoral Center staff's general budget.
Attached is last year's Archdiocesan "accounting". Not too long ago things were spelled out for us, now we only receive a general sense (or not) of where the Catholic collection plate money goes. It seems to me that if we give money, we should know how it's used.
Discernment is really important because we become complicit with evil when our money is used improperly. We just can't pass the buck, or responsibility on, even to clergy who should know better.
In Western Oregon huge sums are paid for promoting CCHD and the upcoming Annual Catholic Appeal (ACA $345,000) Archbishop Vlazny is the Director of Collections for the USCCB.
http://www.usccb.org/committees.shtml
This committee collects hundreds of millions of dollars from US Catholics through various campaigns. Sometimes those in charge count on their staff and trust in their judgement as to whether a group, as in the CCHD grantees, is worthy to receive the hard earned money from Catholics in the pews.
Objectively, lack of judgement has been rampant for decades.
"Progressive" groups that support abortion, pro-homosexual activity and even anti-American sentiment are given hundreds of thousands of dollars over these years, like ACORN. These groups, Saul Alinsky in style, are alive and well-(funded) by Catholics in Oregon. Different names, but same modus operandi. Evil clothed in "moral garments".
For example, was there a conflict of interest between the almost constant grantee VOZ and an ex-employee of Catholic Charities, Francisco Lopez, who was still involved with CAUSA and VOZ affiliated with LA Raza (the race) at the time? VOZ has been given tens of thousands AGAIN this year in Oregon.
We're not privy to conflict of interest, but told only to pay up and don't ask questions.
Here's the conversation I got the okay to distribute from Jim Welsh to Matt Cato, Sandy Mattingly-Paulsen and members of Reform CCHD Now. Let's pray that more light will be shed on where our money goes that's destined for things to help the Body of Christ and not line to pockets of those that work against HIM.
**************************************************
FYI ...Life News has the Breaking story in this link .
http://www.lifenews.com/state4637.html However, in reading the conversations, you'll get a feel of how things work in the Archdpdx.
To All, at (www.reformcchdnow.com )
.
A couple of weeks ago I emailed your organizations about the Archdiocese of Portland's 2009 CCHD grant to Children First for Oregon (CFFO). I questioned the propriety of granting funds to an organization that opposed parental notification to parents of minors seeking an abortion. The Archdiocese has finally responded.
This is a small victory but a victory at least. I tried for several weeks to get a response from the Portland Chancellery offices regarding CFFO. What turned this around I believe was a call yesterday to the area E (Western states) coordinator for CCHD, Sandy Mattingly-Paulen, expressing my frustration with the Portland Archdiocese CCHD office's lack of response to my questions.
I informed Ms. Mattingly that, lacking any response to my questions, I would have no recourse but to detail my findings to BellarmineVeritas for review and distribute those findings to the public. I have no doubt that the satisfactory resolution of this issue was due to previous embarrassing discoveries, by that group, of CCHD funding for organizations which openly support and promote positions opposed to Catholic doctrine and beliefs.
The last sentence of Mr. Cato's email says much about the screening process. It took me about 2 minutes on the internet (Google: Children First for Oregon Measure 43) to discover CFFO's opposition to parental notification.
Sincerely,
Jim Welsh
***********
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:40 AM
CCHD: Children First For Oregon
Dear Mister Welsh,
Re: the issue of the propriety of awarding CCHD grants to Children First For Oregon: please understand that the resolution took longer than one may have preferred because of both the Thanksgiving holiday and the need to investigate the facts. The investigation was necessary to reach a just conclusion.
This office concluded that CCHD cannot consider CFFO for future grants:
"I regret to inform you that because of CFFO’s opposition to the Parental Notification Act, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development cannot consider you for future grants. The Catholic Church...is adamantly opposed to abortion and does not grant exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. "
Thank you for making me aware of this issue. None of the local CCHD committee were aware of CFFO's opposition.
Thank you Mister Welsh.
Peace,
Matt Cato
Office of Justice and Peace/Respect Life
Campaign for Human Development
Archdiocese of Portland
2838 E. Burnside St.
Portland, OR 97214
503.233.8361
mcato@archdpdx.org
justiceandpeace@archdpdx.org
www.archdpdx.org/jprespect
***************
Wed, December 09, 2009
From Jim Welsh to Matt Cato and Sandy Mattingly-Paulen (
SMattingly-Paulen@usccb.org)
Matt,
I understand that CCHD policy is to pursue (CCHD website funding FAQ) the reimbursement of such funds. Will the Archdiocese request these funds be reimbursed?
Jim Welsh
***************
From Matt Cato to Jim Welsh and Sandy Mattingly-Paulen (
SMattingly-Paulen@usccb.org)
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:10 PM
RE: Children First For Oregon
Mister Welsh,
You are correct that the National CCHD policy is to pursue reimbursement of such funds. The local CCHD committee, however, will not pursue reimbursement for the following reasons:
1. CFFO did not deceive the local CCHD committee in its application. The answers on the application were honest. The local application, however, was flawed in that it did not specifically ask for, for example, a list of all ballot measures that an applicant organization or its Executive Director publicly opposed or supported (which the local committee would then cross reference against positions publicly advocated by the Archdiocese).
As the new Diocesan Director for CCHD, I will change the application to better capture the public positions of an applicant organization. (To be determined: how many years back do we ask for such information? United Way, for example, has existed for 122 years. If United Way applied for a grant would we ask for a list of all public positions over 122 years)?
2. The grant year is almost complete and, like most nonprofits, CFFO has spent the funds that we have awarded them.
3. We have, however, removed CFFO from further consideration for grants. This is a significant penalty.
Thank you for checking on this matter.
Peace,
Matt Cato
Office of Justice and Peace/Respect Life
Campaign for Human Development
Archdiocese of Portland
********************
From Jim Welsh, to Sandy Mattingly-Paulen (SMattingly-Paulen@usccb.org) and Matt Cato.
Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:29 PM
Re: Children First For Oregon
Ms. Mattingly,
Regarding Matt Cato's response that the Archdiocese of Portland's will not seek reimbursement of funds granted to CFFO: Is there some reason why local CCHD grantees are not required to adhere to the same standards (affirmations that an organization is not opposed to Church teaching) and forms required of National CCHD grantees?
Matt Cato's response seems to indicate that is the case
It seems the process should start with an affirmation by the prospective grantee that it does not hold positions (such as whether they support a woman's "right" to an abortion) that are opposed to Church teaching.
The grant seeker should then be informed that full reimbursement will be required if the grantee is found to have falsified any information. There needs to be, for local CCHD grants, the same contractual relationship between grantor and grantee as exists with national level grantees. Inasmuch as the funds to be distributed are collected under the auspices of the National CCHD campaign I do not think it unreasonable that national guidelines be applied to local CCHD grantees.
I think this is the crux of the problem with the Portland Archdiocese's local grant process. I think this will certainly help reduce the possibilities of monies being granted to organizations such as CFFO. I do not think that only the public positions of a grantee are the issue.
The main issue is whether or not a grantee holds positions, publicly or privately, contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. A question such as "Does your organization publicly support a woman's right to have an abortion?" is not sufficient. The question must be "Does your organization support a woman's right to have an abortion?". No wiggle room here. In effect there needs to be a "litmus test".
The National guidelines seem to be sufficient when verified. A few minutes on Google will probably take care of the rest of the background investigative needs. In CFFO''s case it only took about 15 minutes to gather the necessary information regarding CFFO's positions. I think that is a relatively small amount of time to ensure that grants totaling thousands of dollars are properly disbursed. There is no need to go back 122 years or ask for all public positions.
We should only be interested in positions vis-a-vis Catholic teaching. I am still concerned about the grant to the Center for Intercultural Organizing (CIO). The RESIST grant is definitely problematic. And Kayse Jama's "overrun by white(s)" comment suggests some questions need to be asked about whether there are racist attitudes in CIO.
I cannot believe CCHD would ever fund an organization whose founder and director said that it needed to "reorganize" its membership because it was being overrun by too many (Choose one or more: Hispanics, Asians, Africans, Muslims, etc.) joining it ranks. Apparently "marginalization" is only permitted if it is practiced against Caucasians.
Respectfully,
"Mister" Welsh aka Jim Welsh
************************************************************************************************************************
There needs to be transparency and a respect for the Catholics in the pews.
ur defense of the unborn is a first priority because lack of this can cause wars, as Mother Teresa said. We pray that the Office of Justice and Peace see this Truth.
If you send me a list of your favorite good charities that follow Catholic Church teachings as an alternative to these campaigns and to keep building up the body of Christ, please send them to me..I'll send them out anonymously.
God Bless you and yours,
Carolyn
"No grant is made in any diocese without the approval of the local bishop." Archbishop Vlanzy, Catholic Sentinel, 11/19/09
"Hi Carolyn, I discussed the issue with Mary Jo (Tully) and came to the conclusion that we could not release the names of committee members without prior approval from them. We need to respect their privacy in the same way we would want ours respected."
Thanks,
David
6/29/06 (Office of Justice and Peace 2005-2007)
David Carrier
Office of Justice and Peace
Campaign for Human Development
* One life
* One world
* One human family
Attachment #1 - Mary Jo Tully's name is listed with "Defend Oregon" and "Tax Fairness Oregon", who paid $500 to be in the voter's guide since they didn't have the 1000 names to be in the "Vote Yes on 66 and 67' and therefore couldn't get in for free. Remember, non-profits won't have to be taxed, like the church.
