2. Toronto – read “My Only Reservation” section in this entry: http://www.socon.ca/?p=1872

The key here is the momentum. As it stands now, this action. IF NOT DUPLICATED BY OTHER BISHOPS. is not going to really impact anything. But as I said above, if more bishops jump on this solution, then it most certainly will. I also know very good news about Toronto that you don’t know about, Kelly, but which I cannot yet blog about.

3. Peterborough – Does not restrict D&P donations per se, but does recognize there is a problem and allows Catholics to participate in the Lenten donation without giving to D&P. This is a moral and psychological victory that cannot be underestimated especially early on in this war. There is also the practical side of people checking off “Other Charities” who would otherwise have no clue what was going on. We might be able to siphon off 10-20%.

4. Pembroke – The devil is in the details here. If Pembroke plays an active oversight role here, this move could be just as effective as Toronto’s. Take Haiti. D&P has many partners on the ground there. At least three of them are pro-abort/pro-contraception. Caritas Haiti was not listed as one of them in their program (I don’t think). CH is not pro-abort. If all of Pembroke’s money were to go to CH, and there was no discretion in giving it to the other agencies which are not really relief agencies, then that’s another point for our side. Most of D&P’s groups are marxist, feminist “social justice” organizations. They are not relief agencies like CH is (among other things). If the diocese of Pembroke insists on vetting that the money they give really does go to relief efforts, there is bound to be a positive outcome to that. In other words, instead of D&P flipping “Fanm Decide” – a radical feminist group – $10,000 of Pembroke’s money which they would otherwise do, they would simply have to redirect it to CH or another non-proabort group.

What I am getting at is this: Part of the frustration about this whole conversation last year is that it never really developped. The charge was made that D&P was funding some groups that have questionable practices, like abortion advocacy. The response was “No D&P do not fund abortion services,” which I had never thought was a charge being made.

I think this is one of the contributions made by your own Archbishop at the Assembly in Cornwall this Fall. He said we actually need to address the actual accusations that are being made.

Now, so what I don’t understand about Toronto and Pembrooke is how what they are doing is really any different. Remember that quote I provided by Suzanne (“when you send a cheque for $1000 for a project, that pays that abortion group’s overhead and helps them live another day to push abortion”). I said I suspected you agreed with it, and if you do, what Toronto and Pembrooke are still doing, is the same thing that every other diocese is doing.

You write “the Archbishop of Toronto’s actions…if matched by more bishops…would indeed start to make a major impact – since the higher proportion of money’s having to be approved by local bishops would necessarily cut out funding many pro-abort groups.”

That in itself makes sense to me. So I get that. That makes sense. The project has to be approved by a local Bishop. I don’t remember however getting that impression out of Pembrooke but I can’t seem to open the damn thing.

Anyways.

I don’t engage in doublespeak, my friend.

I have admitted that the problem substantially remains, but what is more important is the momentum that is building. With enough momentum, hopefully, real changes will be forthcoming.

You will NEVER see me endorse D&P or giving money to them under their current regime.

But just like a pro-life Catholic can work to curtail abortion by praising marginal steps towards its eradication, then I can do so here as well.

And actually, the Archbishop of Toronto’s actions…if matched by more bishops…would indeed start to make a major impact – since the higher proportion of money’s having to be approved by local bishops would necessarily cut out funding many pro-abort groups. That’s why I am encourging and praising these moves.

If the original problem was that D&P funding groups that in turn funding some objectionable actions or agendas, this doesn`t change anything by the Archbishop in Toronto, and the Bishop in Pembrooke.

You appear to be engaged in doublespeak, hence my call for some clarity. Either working with groups who have some questionalbe ties is objectionable from a Catholic moral theological point of view, or it isn`t.

If all of the bishops restricted the funds to only relief efforts, then presumably, many of the groups who are currently objectionable might be cut out. Or maybe not…

Your points are legitimate. However, it is unlikely that there wont be at least SOME cutting back on some of these groups.

I’m more interested in building momentum on ANYTHING I can get my hands on. Beggers can’t be choosers.

If anything, it shows at least the bishops are starting to acknowledge that there might be a serious problem.

When you say this “restriction, while good, is far from ideal“ I`m trying to figure out how you say it is good in the first place.

Group A provides legitimate services, and necessary services, but also provide service or ideological support for something that is at odds with the Catholic Church. Now, so far as I understand it D&P funds projects. Suppose they choose to fund a project of Group A`s that is worthy of funding. By funding that project Group A does not have to use their own funds, and can then you their own money to fund something perhaps more questionable.

I don`t see how Pembrooke and Toronto`s episcopal leadership really have dealt with this. By restricting the way in which there money is being used, I don`t see how this is different from the response emerging from other Bishops which is becoming, `yes some of these groups may provide support for matters at odds with our own views, but we are not funding those matters, we are funding particular projects which are worthy.`

Like I said before, please don`t interpret this as my own opinion about these matters. I am simply trying to figure this out. I haven`t been able to put my finger on it, but perhaps these comments are getting at what I am trying to sort out.

One would think that they would need the money to eat and find shelter, but there is of course no guarantee that excess money received won’t be used to promote their advocacy.

I agree with you, though, Kelly. This restriction, while good, is far from ideal.

Suzanne, in a comment a few posts back, writes “when you send a cheque for $1000 for a project, that pays that abortion group’s overhead and helps them live another day to push abortion.“

Now, the Bishop of Pembrooke has a desire that his funds be used for emergency services. Suppose those emergency services are not morally objectionable, but they are being provided by a group that furthers an agenda which in ways is at odds with the Church’s. By Suzanne`s logic, and I suspect you`d agree with her, that Pembrooke money is going to projects that those groups don’t have to use other money on. As a result in those cases where particular groups further at least aspects of an agenda at odds with the Church, don`t they now have more of their own money to spend as they see fit.

What I am saying is, if there is an overall objection to working with groups who have ties to agendas that are at odds with the Church`s own, I don`t see how Bishop Mulhall or Archbishop Collins are doing anything that deserves any sort of congratulations.

What I am identifying is not where I stand on the matter, but how I am confused by what I perceive to be your response. Can you help clear it up for me?