An apology and a request to CRS

Yesterday, I revisited the questions regarding CRS funding of CARE.  I admitted my intellectual inefficiencies in understanding how the aforementioned funding could not be fungible in some way and asked "If you are smart enough to convince me that there's no way receiving funds from CRS helped CARE in other areas, please take a shot."

Jim Stipe of CRS did "take that shot".  First, I want to thank Jim for not only responding, but for doing so in a charitable manner.  I still had to read his comments several times along with all of the other material I had already read and re-read and re-read ... again.  Told you I might be kind of dumb sometimes.

Next, I do want to address something Jim says in his comments:

"On a personal note, I wouldn't want to work for an organization who had an opportunity to save people’s lives and do no other harm but decided not to simply because they were worried that some people might misunderstand and object."

I admire Jim for his conviction.  While I cannot speak for the motivations of others, I do want to clarify that the prime mover for my reaction(s) was not just the possible misunderstanding of people.  A good priest told me "the heart of true Christian ministry must always be the salvation of souls".  (I do believe that the work of CRS fulfills this obligation.)  I will resist the urge to carry on about spiritual and material needs and their shared connection.  Lucky you.

I admit my own concern that the faithful are tired of feeling "duped" whether warranted or not.  I admit my concern with the "appearance" of an opportunity for the Obama Administration to conclude that the Catholic Bishops are not serious about their opposition to the HHS mandate and its implications with regards to religious freedom.

One must also take into consideration though that we live in a "headline" world where many form opinions quickly and most are too stubborn to change their minds.  Yes, mia culpa many times over.  "The faithful", while collective are also individuals.  Each is at a particular point in his or her spiritual life.  Some are more susceptible to being scandalized than others.  I remain most concerned about the appearance of the donation to CARE for those who may be easily misled (yes, scandalized) and for those who will refrain from charitable giving in the future.

Now, for that moment my wife has been waiting for:

I admit that I was wrong.  Furthermore, I apologize to CRS and to the USCCB for the tone of my original response to this particular issue.  I also want to point out that it is commendable of CRS to use a third party to perform ethical reviews of its activities.

I do urge CRS to consider more carefully the effects that such "appearances" might have and to possibly be a little more proactive in addressing possible concerns of the faithful in the future.

I'll conclude by joining Brandon Vogt in his resolve:

"Despite their imprudence, though, I still support CRS and their otherwise life-changing work. I’ll continue donating every month, our kids will fill up their Rice Bowls with coins next Lent, and I’ll support their projects near and far. I hope you will to. Few charities do better work in the name of Christ and his Church. And almost none do it as efficiently or faithfully as CRS. So together let’s help steer this ship forward in the right direction. And let’s do all we can to strengthen its Catholic identity, not rip the name-tag off its chest."

Maybe I was hard on CRS and the USCCB, but I am not smart enough to say I was wrong yet

On Tuesday I posted regarding funds donated by CRS to CARE.  I based the post on an article by Michelle Bauman of Catholic News Agency.

Yesterday, I noticed on Twitter that @CRSnews was making an effort to respond to the criticism, continuing to defend its contribution to CARE.  Engaging in the "tweeting", I was told by @CRSnews to read a statement by John Haas (stressing "in his own words") of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBS), which did an ethical analyses of the grant for CRS.  Although helpful, I did not (and still do not) believe that the statement was a ringing endorsement of the transaction(s) in question.

In fact, in John Haas' "own words";

The NCBC concluded that great care was taken by CRS to see that funds were used only for the purposes designated, i.e., assisting the poor, the malnourished, and the starving.  

However, there is another dimension to the Principle of Material Cooperation: the consideration of the risk of scandal. Even if cooperation with an evildoer to achieve some great good were morally legitimate it still could not be done if the action of the Catholic would lead others to believe that the Catholic Church were indifferent to the evil, such as, for example, contraception.

He goes on to say that some clarifications were made to the CRS Mission Statement and concluded with "CRS obviously assumes the responsibility for the grants which it awards."

Later, I was directed by someone (whose opinion on such matters I respect) to review an article by Brandon Vogt (no known relation).

While I had already seen the documentation which Brandon presented in the article, he certainly offered a thorough review of such.

I strongly encourage you to read his article and the comments and follow-ups as well.

However, I am personally still having a hard time buying the whole fungibility argument. Maybe CARE can't transfer funding directly, but the analogy given (in Brandon's article)of the $10 to the street guy who uses the money for alcohol instead of food does not seem fit (in my opinion).

A more accurate analogy would seem to be someone (CARE) who receives $10 in food stamps. They use the $10 food stamps for food. However, now they have this $10 that someone else gave them. They were trying to decide if they would use the $10 (or some of it) on food and the rest on alcohol. Now they don't have to make the choice. They can have both.

Maybe I'm too dumb for my own good, but it sure does not smell good when the bishops are fighting Obama on a comparable subject.

If you are smart enough to convince me that there's no way receiving funds from CRS helped CARE in other areas, please take a shot.  Really.  I would love to make my wife happy and admit publicly that I was wrong.

To Serve and Protect

There was an officer-involved fatal shooting in South Dallas last night.  Police were responding to a kidnapping call at a location known to be a "drug house".  Four suspects fled the house, and one was shot and killed after a lengthy chase filled with multiple fights with one of the police officers.  Rumor quickly spread through the neighborhood and beyond that the suspect was shot in the back by the officer.

Hundreds of "angry" people soon filled the streets to "confront" police, prompting a call for SWAT along with other reinforcements.  Meanwhile the parents of the slain suspect stated that their son was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot in the back.  Later, the Chief of Police stated that he believed the suspect was shot in the abdomen and the hand.  He also stated that he did not believe that any of the suspect's family actually witnessed the shooting, saying that family members make similar claims "on almost every shooting."

While there are legitimate questions surrounding what transpired up to the shooting, I couldn't help but think how this happens nearly every time, if not every time, that there is a shooting involving police.  That holds true across the country, not just in Dallas.  People rush to judgement.  There is a predetermined mistrust of police.

It is true that many cities have suffered from police corruption, but the ones who have suffered the most are the police themselves.  Most police officers are good people, placing their lives on the line every single day to serve and protect people that they do not know.  Nation wide, 57 police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year alone.

All of them are human as are you and I.  While training helps a police officer to prepare for such encounters, do you really think that any human being is truly "prepared" to respond perfectly or as some machine during a struggle for his/her own life?  I leave the question open for you to ponder.

We don't have all of the facts and evidence in this case.  It will take time to collect evidence and statements from those involved and from witnesses.  Let's calmly let those entrusted with such things take the necessary time to make a fair determination, report their findings, and to follow up accordingly.

Meanwhile, perhaps we can think kindly of and pray for all of the police men and women who take an oath to serve and protect us, and who do so every day.

Reproductive Health: Safe, Legal, and Rare

These terms of the so-called "pro choice" crowd make me cringe.  So do many of their other terms, including "pro choice", that they use or have used in the past.  Alas, that is for another day.

Abortion is not "reproductive health".  It kills reproduction, and being an unnecessary "procedure", it not in the best interest of "health".

Legal?  Just because our country does not recognize it as inhumane or a crime does not make it so.  Slavery was once accepted as well.  One can only hope and pray that our nation will one day reflect on the tragedy of abortion as it now does regarding slavery.

Rare?  Abortion is a September 11 each and every day.  There are about as many Americans killed each day via abortion as there are victims of our nation's most stunning attack.  There are about as many Americans killed each year via abortion as there have been in all of the wars (including actions against pirates) we have engaged in combined.  (And we're only talking about abortions in the U.S.)

Safe?  Well, it's certainly not safe for the innocent babies who are killed in a variety of ways.  And the mothers?  Those claims of "back alley abortions" come to mind whenever I think of the many abortion mill locations I have seen.  Hello!  They're still "back alley" in my opinion of course.  And the women who go in look as if they've been through hell.  Oh yeh, they have.  And what about the proven psychological effects they suffer afterwards?

Enough of my rant.  Have you seen this?

-------------

Family Seeks Answers After Woman’s Death Following Abortion 

 CHICAGO (CBS) – The family of a Chicago woman who died after an abortion at Planned Parenthood says it wants answers about her death.

Tonya Reaves, 24, died late Friday night from a hemorrhage, with a cervical dilation and evacuation, as well as an intrauterine pregnancy as contributing causes, according to the medical examiner’s office.

 She died after she’d had an abortion at Planned Parenthood at 18 S. Michigan Av, according to the medical examiner’s office.

 Her death was ruled an accident, but the Reaves family wants to know more, especially Tonya’s twin sister Toni.

“We were born the same day. She was my other half,” Toni said.

Toni Reaves said the family is trying to get through this.

“It happened so fast. She was just fine one day and then the next day she was gone. We’re just trying to figure out what happened… what happened,” she said.

Toni Reaves said her sister was engaged to be married and had one son – Alvin – who just had his first birthday.

In a written statement, Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite said “We were shocked and saddened upon learning of a tragic development at a nearby hospital. Our hearts go out to the loved ones of this patient.

“While legal abortion services in the United States have a very high safety record, a tragedy such as this is devastating to loved ones and we offer our deepest sympathies. Planned Parenthood of Illinois cares deeply about the health and safety of each and every patient. We do not publicly discuss private patient matters and we follow HIPAA laws that forbid the disclosure of patient information.”
--------------

Right!

Hey USCCB!, You can't ride two horses with one...

It was recently discovered that Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the official overseas relief agency of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has participated in funding CARE.  CARE is an international humanitarian organization which provides relief in developing nations.

Great!  However, they also provide contraception and early-abortion-inducing drugs!

In an article by Catholic News Agency, CRS defends its funding of CARE, and states that it “always has taken very seriously decisions we make about the groups with which we collaborate or form partnerships to ensure that we are not violating the Church teachings.”

CRS further defends its funding of CARE by stating that there was "little to no risk" that funds it donated would be used for purposes other than what it intended.

NOT good enough!  If CARE has $100 that they can use toward food or abortion, and CRS gives them another $100, CRS just gave CARE the means to provide abortion.  Hello!!!???

Paraphrasing the Church's teaching, "It is ... an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. ... One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (1)

I know, I know.  "These days you can't avoid indirectly participating in such activities."  This is not like you or me shopping at some store that donates to an organization that in turn donates to another.

The Catholic Bishops are in a fight, to say the least, against the immoral and unjust Obama / HHS mandate.  They teach (rightly so) against some of what CARE provides via (however indirect) CRS funding.  And who funds CRS?  Yep, faithful Catholics.  It's hard to purport a position when there is evidence to the contrary.

It's time for the Bishops to stop allowing funds, given in good conscience, to be used for immoral activities.  Its time for them to do their homework, stop relying on third party information, and to avoid these continuous "egg-faced" embarrassments.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church 1756

Blowing things up

Photo from wwltv

What is it about blowing things up that intrigues us so much?

Yesterday in New Orleans, the former Grand Palace Hotel was imploded.  The local media there has given the event considerable coverage before, during, and after the event, complete with pictures, videos (from multiple vantage points no less), and interviews of those gathered to witness the implosion.  Heck, even the mayor said "it was cool".

People were really giddy.  Having spent most of my life in the New Orleans metro area, I would be inclined to think that the hoopla was specific to the area, but I've witnessed similar coverage and reaction to implosions in the past 7 years in North Texas.  In fact, people seem to like implosions so much, the DFW media covers the ones in other states as well.  (Yes, I did see some coverage of the Grand Palace implosion last night.)

Just a small taste of some of the coverage:

http://www.wwltv.com/home/Implosion-of-Grand-Palace-Hotel-sign-of-progress-for-city-say-officials-163347266.html

http://www.wwltv.com/video/featured-videos/Hotel-implosion-from-4-different-angles-163341516.html

http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/orleans/Crowds-gathered-and-found-163389946.html

Show me your identification please

For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh (Ephesians 2:14)

 It's Sunday morning, and soon the family will be awake and preparing to go to Mass.  I've been up for quite some time now, and was really wondering what "identity" this blog would take on.  There are some really great blogs out there.  Many are well-established, and most are devoted to specific topics.

Naturally, I began to equate my thoughts for A Talking Donkey with my own personal life and experiences.  Ha!  Suffice to say that this concludes trying to nail down a particular topic or thinking that this thing will not "evolve" (but hopefully in a good way).

Today's Scripture Readings at Mass lend an opportunity to contemplate "identity".  In the Gospel (Mark 6:30-34), we hear that when Jesus "saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd".  In the First Reading (Jeremiah 23:1-6), God says "I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them".  In the Responsorial Psalm (Psalm 23), we proclaim "The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want."  What's all this about sheep and shepherds?


Well, first about the sheep thing.  Sheep are animals of prey and are not thought of as being too "bright".  In most regions, sheep have a tendency to group together in communities (flocks).  When flocks are of mixed breeds, they tend to form sub communities of like breeds, and even more closely within those that they are most closely related to.  Hmmmm.  Generally, they will follow the first sheep in their flock to move, and become stressed when separated from their flock.  (It's also interesting to note that in regions where they have no predators, sheep are less inclined to exhibit this congregational behavior.)


Understanding one's natural inclinations and tendencies, are a good first step in understanding one's identity.  God is not demeaning us with this comparison.  He is helping us to understand that we have become something lessor than what He created us to be.  God created us in His image (Genesis 1:27), but because of sin, we have fallen short. (Romans 3:23)

Paul reminds us in today's Second Reading (Ephesians 2:13-18) that our true identity is in Christ.  Speaking of Gentiles and Jews (from different flocks, if you will), he says that we are now one through Christ's flesh.  In Galatians 3:28, Paul says it more clearly; "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

It's pretty easy to forget who I am sometimes, a lot of times.  In fact, when I fall, the devil is really quick to "pull me over" to write that ticket.  It's a good thing that my id card has a picture of Jesus on it.

A Talking Donkey

It's been a long time, but I think I am finally ready to share some thoughts beyond a few facebook posts.  I hope somebody finds my posts interesting.  Heck, I hope somebody finds my posts...period.

I decided to name the blog after one of my favorite Bible verses (Numbers 22:28) because it proves that God is willing to speak through the mouth of an _ _ _ !!!

So let's see if I can stay at it and if anyone cares that I do, shall we?