D&P Lashes Out With Wild Accusations

Below is my response to Development & Peace’s Q&A Statement which was reported by LifeSiteNews yesterday.

The Controversy: Questioning DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE
Questions & Answers

Q1.  What is this controversy raised by some groups relative to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE purportedly funding abortion and pro-abortion advocacy in some  countries in the Global South?

A1. In the Spring of 2009, in the midst of our annual Share Lent campaign , a militant anti-abortion advocacy organization and several supporting blog sites on the Internet raised unfounded accusations against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, alleging that we had been directly or indirectly funding or supporting abortion or other activities that go against Gospel values and our Catholic Teachings.

On the contrary, the accusations against Development & Peace funding pro-abortion groups is more than well-founded or probable. It is definitive and certainThe evidence is wide and deep, emanating from D&P’s own partners’ websites, interviews with their spokespersons, photographic evidence and personal witnesses, confirmation by Bishops’ conferences, and other credible third party sources. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that the continual denial by Development & Peace outs their organization as the liars and frauds that they are.  The latest scandalous revelation is typical of the kind of groups that Development & Peace sponsors.  Trying to smear LifeSiteNews for reporting on the facts by indirectly referring to it as a “militant anti-abortion advocacy organization” only proves that Development & Peace is acting like a pathetic criminal who has been caught red-handed, while attempting to deflect attention from its immoral actions. At the end of the day, accusations and denunciations are only as good as the facts that back them up.  The Catholic Internet Community stands behind the facts while Development & Peace cannot. And that, my friends, is the bottom line.

These attacks against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE did not arise from any particular event or action by DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE or our partners. They represent a concerted, organized and planned campaign deliberately targeting our organization.

Given that Development & Peace refuses to admit the facts about their pro-abortion sponsorship, it is not too surprising to read this kind of paranoia.   The Catholic Internet Community picks up each other’s stories and starts to report and blog on them.  Obviously, we are interested in an organization which claims to be Catholic, has the ostensible support of the Canadian bishops, and sends millions of dollars each year from Catholic donors to advance the pro-abortion holocaust in the Global South.  As far as I am concerned, that makes Development & Peace fair game for criticism.  But like all Marxist-inspired political organizations, their sense of entitlement extends well beyond your money. They seem to think they should be above criticism too.  Development & Peace should stop their whining, admit the facts, and defend their actions. Otherwise, they should stop their pretensions of being a Catholic organization and move on.  We all know what would happen to their gig if they did that, though, don’t we?

These single-issue militant advocacy groups, particularly those focusing on anti-abortion advocacy, continuously misrepresent facts and distort reality to serve their purpose. They create lots of noise, slander people and organizations and remain relentless in the pursuit of their attacks.   Any organization or individual that does not adhere to their dogmatic view of social issues will be kept in their crosshairs,  including DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE as well as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB).

“Single-issue”.  Does that sound familiar?  Why bring in this politically-loaded term when discussing their “development and aid” mandate? And what “dogmatic view of social issues” are they talking about? Does this not suggest that Development & Peace is most certainly not pro-life? Of course it does.  The term “dogmatic” when used by the Left is a slur to express their contempt for those who adhere to absolute positions on moral issues like abortion.  In these two sentences, Development & Peace has officially tipped their hand as to what they really believe.

These groups are part of the far right wing fringe element of North American society  and have themselves been associated with groups and individuals who have resorted to violence to publicize their cause and achieve their objectives. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has acquired over 40 years of international development experience in fighting injustice, working with the poor and spreading the teachings of our Church. We take our legacy very seriously. We have been recognized and acclaimed throughout the world for the millions of lives we have touched.

I wonder if the “far right wing fringe element” is at all related to the “vast far right wing conspiracy”? 

I challenge Development & Peace to identify by name any of their opponents as being associated with “groups and individuals who have resorted to violence to publicize their cause.”

They won’t do it, of course, because the legal risks of doing so would be too high since when you are in court defending a libel action, you’d better have the evidence to back it up. So they resort to the next best thing, the well-known “smear by group association”.

Q2.  Are any of these charges against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE founded?

A2.  Absolutely not! 

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has not and will not fund or support any activity that does not meet with our fundamental Catholic beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church. We have been clear on this position. We have stated it repeatedly and we will continue to reiterate it.

You are not Catholic. Please desist from spreading false information.  And as far as the “clarity” of your position goes, stating something and repeating it are not the same thing as actually engaging the evidence.  Anyone can deny something. It’s a different matter altogether to interact with the evidence arrayed against you.

D&P continues to fight against the root causes of social injustice and poverty, in solidarity with the poor and disenfranchised of the world according to the teachings of the Church. Our work reflects our rich heritage of Catholic Social Teaching, with particular emphasis on the fundamental principle of a “preferential option for the poor”. In this mission, we will not accept that any fringe groups distort and misrepresent our work and values, undermining the good work we have been doing throughout the world for the last 42 years in the name of the Catholic Church of Canada.

Baloney.  Development & Peace does some good work. The rest of their work is political advocacy for the latest socialist cause in the Global South. The “fringe groups” reporting on their activities should not concern them in the slightest.  If someone – anyone – brings evidence of wrong-doing against a Church organization, the management of that organization has a moral obligation to answer it fully and completely.  Stop diverting the issue and accept your responsibilities to ANSWER THE CHARGES IN DETAIL like men and women of honour and disciples of Christ.

Q3.  How have these false allegations affected DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE?

A3.  Fortunately, our membership and Catholic clergy had the wisdom to give DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE the benefit of the doubt and founded their judgment on facts and accomplishments. The 2009 Lent Campaign was successful, and the financial impact on our organization in terms of reduced support from individual donors has been minimal.

The 2009 Lenten Campaign was successful because there was little time to get the word out among Church-going Catholics.  The revelations broke shortly before the Lenten Campaign collected the funds.  Unfortunately, I predict there will be little effect this Lent too because most Catholics are not still being told the truth – not by the hierarchy and not by the Catholic Lapdog Press – about the firm evidence compiled against Development & Peace. It will take years before revenues drop in any  significant fashion.

Where our detractors have succeeded is in temporarily diverting the attention and energy of our leadership away from our regular work.

Thanks be to God. Small victories are still important.

Q4. Who are these groups levying these allegations? What credibility do they have to raise such accusations? They seem to be publicly offering what could be construed as ‘evidence’ to support their claims.

A4.  This slanderous attack campaign was initiated by a militant anti-abortion lobbying group Campaign Life Coalition, a privately-owned and financed group with offices in Toronto and Ottawa. Using their Website LifeSiteNews.com,

“Privately-owned”?  I guess Development & Peace is spooked by anyone who dares own anything outside of the State or their organs.  There is nothing to “own” in Campaign Life. They’re a not-for-profit organization, a status which Development & Peace should appreciate.  However, unlike Development & Peace, they fund their operations from the generous donations of pro-life Canadians.  Of course, they’re not subsidized by the Church or the government and they are not flush with the mountains of cash that D&P is. In point of fact, if anyone is the rich, “imperialist boogieman”, it’s Development & Peace.

p.s. A “slanderous attack” cannot be slanderous if it’s true, for the very definition of slander requires the facts to be false.  In the case of Development & Peace and their abortion-pushing lackeys in the Global South, the allegations against them are more true than the $5M that D&P doles out in salaries for adminstration purposes or, even worse, for their pro-abort leaders in the Global South (out of a $30M budget) every year.

this group selectively targets and attacks individuals and groups who are not in conformity with their socially conservative political and moral ideology. Campaign Life Coalition is a member of an international network of similar organizations, the International Right to Life Federation, which claims membership in over 170 countries as a world-wide federation of autonomous, national pro-life groups and individuals.

I thought that you said that CLC belonged to an association of “fringe groups”. Membership in 170 countries does not sound too “fringe” to me.

Neither Campaign Life Coalition nor LifeSiteNews.com are registered charities or accredited news services, nor in any way affiliated with the Catholic Church. Both are privately-held and financed political action lobbyist organizations promoting a particular political agenda.

Well, Development & Peace is a charity but that does not stop it from engaging in its own political propaganda.  Perhaps it’s time to have the CRA investigate to see if Development & Peace still qualifies as a charity. There are strict rules for political activism for a charity, and it’s limited to only 10% of a charity’s budget.  Just this past year, KAIROS Canada, of which Development & Peace was a “founding member and active partner”, got their CIDA funding cut for its political activism.  If their activities can be questioned and acted upon, then so can the activities of Development & Peace.

Despite its name, LifeSiteNews.com is not an accredited news organization, but an Internet forum promoting a specific political agenda.

That’s not saying too much.  It’s the “unaccountableblogosphere and more organized internet news services that are holding the conventional news media accountable.  That’s why the conventional news media is dying and the unconventional one is rising.   Remember Dan Rather?  Remember ClimateGate?  Who do you think blew the cover off of those stories and dozens of other major news items?  It wasn’t Dan Rather and the Evening News.  The fact is: LSN and every other blogger or internet news organization is accountable to the wider internet community which have the power to verify or contradict the evidence in a few seconds with a few clicks and taps.  The accountability standard is called “the truth”, not some Pravda-style, socialist bureaucratic committee which claims for itself the ability to confer “credibility entitlements”.  Development & Peace’s idea of “news”, like its theology and political ideology, is still stuck in the sixties.

Besides, just who is going to be doing the “accreditation”?  The same media sources like this one who have given you a free ride?  Let’s get real, OK?  Media accreditation means squat. What counts is your credibility and the truth of what you report. That’s it. 

In their work on this campaign (and in others) targeting Development and Peace and the Canadian Catholic Church, LifeSiteNews.com works closely with and draws on commentary from a few individual independent contributors and Internet blog sites. By their nature, these blog sites are unregulated opinion forums whose contributors have no legal accountability to ensure either factual accuracy of their opinions or commentary nor to adhere to any professionally recognized standards of journalism or reporting. The majority of visitor “hits” to the LifeSiteNews.com website originate in the United States. The number of registered hits directly to individual blog sites contributing to LifeSiteNews.com varies according to the ‘popularity’ of the blog, but are generally limited to a few hundred individuals. Relative to the Catholic population of Canada (and North America), the numbers of supporters and readers of these sites is insignificant.

Then why are you so upset, and why has this caused you so much grief?  Of course, you are getting your facts all wrong on LSN’s traffic, if you would bother to read their own reports on the matter.

Q5.  Has DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE answered any of these allegations? Some of these charges seem to pertain to the fact that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE does not have clear institutional policies on issues of life, abortion, birth control and other matters that are currently controversial within the Catholic Church.

A5.  Yes, we have responded to all of them.

Oh stop it. You haven’t responded to any of them in any meaningful way.  You’ve simply denied the allegations and obfuscated.

At our request, and with our full support and collaboration, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) set up a Committee of Inquiry to publicly review the first set of allegations in this controversy, which dealt with five of our partners in Mexico. The Committee visited Mexico, met with the Episcopal Conference of the Bishops of Mexico, as well as with our Mexican partner groups, and submitted a report clearly dispelling the allegations levied against us as without foundation.

You set up a phony committee and white-washed the findings.  Then, when one of the bishops of your committee was probed about the report, embarrassing details came out:

Despite the brevity of the interview, LSN was able to show the archbishop online evidence of direct pro-abortion advocacy of one of the five groups he investigated. To this revelation the archbishop frankly and apologetically acknowledged, “I just should have followed up more.”

The archbishop also noted that in meeting with the bishops of Mexico and one of their experts on bioethical matters, the Mexican bishops’ expert, Dr. Pilar Calva, had indeed indicated serious concerns with the groups in question.  When asked why those concerns of Dr. Calva were not mentioned in the report, Archbishop Currie said he thought they were in the report.  “I think they were,” he said. (Source) {Editor’s note:  No they weren’t.}

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is a lay Catholic organization that works in close proximity with the Conference of Catholic Bishops, other Catholic-based institutions, as well as with government and non-governmental organizations.  Our work is done with partners who share our values and commitment to social justice, and always in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Our policies are guided and informed by these values and teachings. Our Catholic faith is the fundamental core of our existence and our work as an organization. We are guided and inspired by the tenets of our Faith, as articulated by the moral and spiritual leadership within our Church. Our work principles and our commitment to our Catholic faith are intrinsic to every program and project we support throughout our global network. In 2003, we adopted an institutional Policy on HIV/AIDS to guide our work on this important issue affecting international development. This policy was developed in close collaboration and consultation with the CCCB. Moving forward, D&P will continue to shape and adopt any other policies that it feels required as to better support the work we are called to do.

If you work closely with Catholic Bishops, why don’t you listen to the bishops of Peru and stop funding pro-abort groups there, as they have requested?

Q6.  What about DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE partners in southern countries (Nicaragua, East Timor, Nigeria, for example) who have obviously been “exposed” by the anti-abortion bloggers? What has DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE done or what does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE intend to do in these cases?

A6.  As a fundamental principle, we do not finance or support any partner sponsored activity that does not reflect our Catholic values and Catholic Social Teaching. Allegations regarding some of our partner organizations being involved in promoting abortion have been deliberately misleading and fabricated on the basis of hearsay, conjecture and selective misinterpretation and misrepresentation of our programs and the work of our partners. Not one of our partners named in any of the controversy has ever promoted or assumed advocacy positions that could be objectively interpreted as “abortionist” or “pro-abortion”.

You lie.

In their incendiary irresponsible rhetoric, the bloggers have simplistically reduced the work of our partners involved in the support of rights and equality for women to being that of “abortionists”. In many of the cited incidents, our partners have been members of broad-based coalitions of civil society organizations working with their respective governments for improved human rights conditions. The principal advocacy issue which has spurred and fuelled the reactions of our attackers has been the issue of de-criminalization of abortion which remains a highly contentious issue in many societies.

So that’s it, is it?  Soft peddling your tolerance of abortion by pointing to how de-criminalization is a “highly contentious issue in many societies”.   After all, who is Development & Peace to stand in the way or get involved in such a “contentious issue”?

The nature of our work in promoting social justice frequently involves us and our partners in situations where established institutions and public policies are openly challenged in the name of greater justice and equity. When issues and incidents do arise involving the positions of our partners in advocacy for particular causes, we always consider such situations very seriously and ensure that communication channels are always open and that frank dialogue are engaged with our involved  partners. Such as been the case ever since these false allegations have been raised. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE will continue to work to ensure that we maintain an alignment of values with all our partners of the Global South.

My guess is that you have rarely, if ever, given any of your partners any flak for their abortion-pushing ways.  And you have certainly never threatened their funding over it.  When “issues and incidents do arise involving the positions of [your] partners in advocacy for particular causes” which contradict Catholic teaching, you bury your head and wave the pro-abort caravan through just the same.

Q7. Why have certain dioceses and bishops continued to express reservations and given credence to these groups and their frivolous charges? Why have some dioceses withheld the proceeds of their 2009 Share Lent collection?  What do they hope to gain by these actions? How have these initiatives affected DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE operations?

A.7 The allegations have had an effect on all of us. We are a lay organization within the Catholic Church of Canada. We have been staunchly dedicated to fighting poverty, social injustice and violence throughout the world for all of our 42 years of existence. An attack of this nature on our good faith and reputation is de-stabilizing and troubling and has had an impact not just on the staff of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE but on every member of our 13 000 strong organization. Such an impact has naturally disturbed our supporters and donors, so it is not at all surprising that our bishops and clergy have also been affected by reactions in their dioceses and parishes. In many cases, bishops have been approached by parishioners or members of the Catholic faithful in their dioceses who have visited the Websites of those attacking us, and these bishops have contacted us for clarification. Some of our Bishops have asked that these charges be investigated, others rightly requested clarification regarding the allocation and use of our funds, and others wish to better understand the nature and extent of what we do. We are answering all of these concerns that were raised by our Catholic leaders. Most bishops of Canada are well aware of the activities of the anti-abortion advocacy movement, as collectively and individually, bishops have been targeted by these groups in various media campaigns.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing to hear that my efforts have had a de-stabilizing and troubling impact on the staff of Development & Peace.  It means that perhaps consciences are being shaken and positions might be reconsidered.  Better now than at the Judgement, I say.  It’s a small price to pay, too, considering the abortion juggernaut now bearing down in the Global South on unborn children which has been financed by Development & Peace.  Disturbing Development & Peace employees or their supporters does not really rise to the level of dismembered limbs of helpless babies.  I’ll save my tears for the latter, thanks.

Q8.  Besides the Archdiocese of Toronto, how many dioceses have expressed their ‘reservation’ about sending the proceeds of the Share Lent 2009 collection to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE?

A8.  The Catholic Church in Canada comprises 67 dioceses. When this controversy first arose, 6 dioceses publicly expressed their support of a Committee of Inquiry by the CCCB to establish the veracity of these charges and withheld release of the proceeds of the Share Lent collection until the Committee findings were released.  When the Committee released its report, concluding that the allegations were without foundation, 5 of the dioceses confirmed their engagements towards DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE for the 2009 collection. The Archdiocese of Toronto, because of the unique structure of its Lenten campaign, committed financial support to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE equivalent to the amount provided in the prior year 2008 collection, subject to some revised project and reporting protocols. We are still in active discussion with the Archdiocese of Toronto on this revised allocation agreement.

Things are not as rosey as Development & Peace makes them out to be.

Q9.  Did DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE follow up on the public recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry and by some Bishops?

A9.  Yes. Our National Council formed a special sub-committee (Working Group) to review the recommendations of the CCCB Committee of Inquiry and to review Development and Peace operating policies to ensure that a repeat of this controversy can be avoided. This Working Group submitted its report and recommendations to the National Council at the November 2009 meeting. The Theological Reflection Committee of Development and Peace prepared a reflection perspective on several of the underlying issues of the controversy, as well as demonstrating and reaffirming the role of Catholic Social Teaching in the work of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and our partners. In December 2009, the CCCB named an Ad Hoc Committee of four bishops to work with Development and Peace over the next year on a program of institutional reflection and renewal to deepen and strengthen the working relationship between the organization and the bishops of Canada. This Committee will report to the Plenary Assembly of the CCCB in October 2010. Meanwhile, the bishops of Canada (at their October 2009 Plenary Assembly) unanimously confirmed and endorsed their commitment to Development and Peace for the 2010 Share Lent national campaign. 

Anything short of a complete gutting of your working principles will be considered by the pro-life community as a resounding failure.  You’ve already had one investigative committee which tried to white-wash the events.  You won’t get a third chance to do the same. In fact, every time you try another fraudulent window-dressing tactic, you take another step down the “credibility ladder” – for both Development & Peace and the bishops of Canada.  The jig is up.  Time to face the facts.

Q10. Why doesn’t DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE report to local bishops’ conferences in the countries where it has partners and projects? Why do links with the Catholic Church in our partner countries appear to be weak or non-existent?

A10.  DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was originally set up as a membership-based democratic organization for the laity within the Catholic Church of Canada. We occupy a special position within the Church, as an organization for engaged and active Catholic lay persons to work for social justice as an expression of their Catholic faith. We work closely with Church organizations and institutions in many of our partnerships. More than 40% of our projects internationally are in partnership directly with Episcopal commissions, national Bishops’ conferences, or member organizations of the Caritas Internationalis network (the international emergency relief network of the Catholic Church, represented in 162 countries. Development and Peace is Caritas Canada). As an independent lay organization, our responsibility is to our membership, our partners, and our thousands of supporters (both clerical and lay) throughout the Catholic community in Canada. We have a democratically-elected governance structure through our 23-member National Council. Two seats on our National Council (our governing board) are designated for bishops appointed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. These two member bishops provide us with close liaison and communication with the Canadian episcopacy. In the Global South, our partners are selected on the basis of their professional expertise in meeting the development challenges of their communities and their countries, not necessarily on the basis of their religious affiliation. As noted above, many of these partners are directly involved with the Church, while many others have long-standing Catholic roots from their founding. We also have partnerships with organizations of other faiths, who share our commitment to social justice and our values. In many countries, our partner network is small, and our level of funding is modest. Hence, in some instances, our work and partnerships are relatively unknown or invisible, lacking public profile. While we make conscious effort to engage and inform local Church authorities of our work, in some countries and dioceses we remain unfamiliar. Where possible and appropriate, we actively facilitate networking and relationships with the local structures of the Catholic Church.

1. Your view of “social justice” is as skewed and distorted as your refusal to admit the evidence concerning your partners’ pro-abortion sensibilities.

2. The Episcopal Commissions you work with 1) have no clue of the activities of your pro-abort partners 2) do have a clue but its lay-bureaucrats are merely as Marxist as Development & Peace is, or 3) know what you are doing and have demanded that you stop.

3. Your co-operation with Episcopal Commissions can hardly be that strong or effective. Otherwise, you would not have an objection from the Largest Archdiocese in Canada:

In July 2009, Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto made the following statement: “I would suggest two principles that should govern the way in which Development and Peace operates in funding projects in foreign lands: 1) It is not enough to examine the suitability of individual projects. The organizations that operate the projects must also be in harmony with the principles of our Catholic faith. If they are not, then there are plenty of other worthy projects that are operated by organizations which we can in good conscience support, and funding should go to them. 2) We must always act in concert with the local bishops who are responsible for the Church in distant lands. This is required by natural courtesy, and also by the way the Church is structured. The bishops on the scene are also the ones who can verify that organizations in their country are appropriate partners, and are not in any way supporting anything contrary to our faith. Projects which we fund need to be in some way approved by the local bishop or the bishops’ conference.” In February 2010, the Archdiocese re-affirmed this commitment.

Q11. Why does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE use a partnership approach in its work for social justice? Why doesn’t DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE directly support the good works of the Church in southern countries by supporting Catholic schools, missions, medical clinics, pastoral works, etc.?

A11.  International development for social justice is a complex undertaking.  Ensuring that our programs are effective in reaching the poor and disenfranchised and in fighting the structural causes of injustice and poverty requires experience and expertise and involves skills in many areas. We actively seek out organizations committed to social justice with whom we share our values, and who have the basic expertise and capacity to undertake community-based development projects to transform social structures and peoples’ lives. Social justice and human rights work has been the “niche” of Development & Peace, while other organizations, including many Catholic agencies and charities, have developed expertise in pastoral work, social work, or building and maintaining institutional infrastructure. We openly collaborate on many occasions with these groups in working on common causes of benefit to local communities. Four decades of development success has been achieved through our partnership model.  Through our grassroots-level engagement with civil society, we are close to the communities with whom we work, and responsive to their self-identified needs and self-directed projects. The Catholic Church has numerous means to offer help and support to the needy and does so through pastoral funds, various initiatives of Catholic religious orders, direct links between dioceses etc… All of these initiatives, as well as the social justice and human rights focus of Development and Peace, are part of the broad spectrum of community-based human development. We do, in fact, support the “good works of the Church” in affirming our Gospel values and promoting Catholic Social Teaching in all of our projects and partnerships. Development and Peace proudly wears its Catholic identity in all of our projects and programs.

You don’t represent me or thousands of faithful Catholics.  And your views of social justice can hardly considered to be consistent with Catholic values at all.  Earlier in your response, you slanderously tried to associate LSN with so-called “militant anti-abortion advocacy groups…with groups and individuals who have resorted to violence to publicize their cause and achieve their objectives.”  Not only is this a complete fabrication, but Development & Peace can hardly be too concerned about violent clashes since it kicks in a significant sum to help the radical VIOLENT leftists advance their agenda.  This is what Development & Peace considers to be “social justice”:

“…I discovered that D&P spent $130,000 for the demonstrators at the Quebec City Summit of the Americas in 2001. See attached scan of  a letter from a former Board member to D&P published in the Prairie Messenger Feb. 2002, after I wrote about the funding,  that said he was one who went to the counter conference in Quebec City and seemingly acknowledging the cost . Also see one of the many news reports of what happened at that event in the article titled “Police and protesters exchange tear gas as violence rocks Quebec City again“. Do you remember the government of Canada building the steel security fence to keep the radicals out?  That’s right, D&P were there!  D&P called it a “counter conference”, for those poor people not represented by their governments.  If anyone is unrepresented by governments, it has to be the unborn and pro-life people…” (Source)

Q12.  How are partners selected? How does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE monitor its partners? How does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE ensure that funded initiatives and their sponsoring partners are not using money to support causes which are not aligned with Catholic values and Catholic Social Teaching?

A12.  DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE partners are selected following an assessment of the overall development context of the countries in which we work and identification of key organizations within the Church and civil society networks who share our social justice mission and objectives.  The assessment of potential partners involves consultation on site with our professional staff, who regularly visit the country and are familiar with the critical development issues and challenges. Potential new partner organizations are referred to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE by existing partners or through networks of civil society organizations. Discussions are held with potential partners to determine their overall ‘fit’ in the framework of our program, and then followed by an institutional assessment of partner capacity and orientations. We adhere to several important partnership principles in our selection of partners. Most prominently is the principle of “shared values”. We partner with organizations who share our Gospel-based ‘preferential option for the poor’, and who have demonstrated commitment to our values of transformative change for social justice. Among our operational principles are policies of ‘modest investment’ (i.e. our financial support to any given partner or project is relatively small in comparison to other development agencies); “no dependency” (DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is never the principal source of financing for any partner group); “long-term engagement” (our partner relationships are built on an institutional basis and designed to accompany partners in their work in a spirit of genuine solidarity over many years). These principles are the foundation of solidarity relationships that address the root causes of social injustice and inequity, recognizing that meaningful and effective change can only occur over the long term. Our engagement provides partners with the assurance of our long-term core support, to enable them to focus on the major challenges of transformative social change.

LSN: “Do you have a policy about not giving to pro-life groups?”
D&P’s Brunelli: “No. We don’t. As I was saying, we do not have a particular policy on abortion.”

LSN: “So, your organization has no policy for or against abortion at all?”
Brunelli: “No, we don’t. We never were asked and again because we understand that statements on the sanctity and the taking of life is not our role, that’s the role of our bishops.”


Our administrative procedures are rigorous and disciplined – we require quarterly financial reports from partners, annual audited financial statements, and annual results-based workplans developed in close joint consultation and collaboration. These are supported by regular monitoring visits by our professional program staff.  Results-based protocols govern the release of project funds – i.e. programs have to be effectively managed and delivering the agreed-upon results before funds are released. These principles and protocols reinforce the solidarity of our working relationships in the true spirit of partnership. Our close and regular contact with partners is governed by mutual trust and transparency. Where differences arise, these are addressed in dialogue and consultation. As a result of our approach, and the care taken in partner selection, our partner network is characterized by relationships that we have maintained over many years. We have partnerships that have continued over 20 – 25 year periods, and many of over 10 years of continuous working together.

None of this makes any difference. I was an auditor for many years. Without proper internal controls or a specific audit on how the funds are being used within the organization and between programs, including funding for “overhead” costs like administrative salaries, rent, etc., there is no way of ensuring that the money used is not going towards subsidizing pro-abortion groups and their abortion-pushing.  It is virtually impossible that the pro-abort groups sponsored were not benefiting in some way (perhaps even substantially) from the alliance with Development & Peace.

Q13.  Does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE partner with groups that are not affiliated with the Catholic Church? How much of the total DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE funding goes to non-Catholic groups? What proportion of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE partners are Catholic?

A13.  Yes, of course. We partner with groups who share our values, principles, and professional approach to development, regardless of religious affiliation. As noted above, more than 40% of our partners are directly affiliated to the institutional Church, while approximately another 25% have grown from a Catholic tradition and origin. In many developing countries, the Catholic Church is a “minority faith”, and our outreach to the poor and marginalized is extended to broader populations through our partnerships with organizations of other faiths who share our values and commitment to justice. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE works throughout the world with peoples of all races and religious persuasions. It is one of the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church to be inclusive, a principle that has always guided the work that we do.

Some of the pro-abort groups in Mexico “grew out of a Catholic tradition” as well:

MEXICO CITY, March 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Director of Mexico’s National Pro-Life Committee has confirmed to LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he is personally aware that at least three of the groups funded by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) in Mexico are pro-abortion (see LifeSiteNews coverage here.  In a telephone interview, Jorge Serrano told LSN that he is aware that “The All Rights for Everyone Network is an abortionist group, CENCOS [National Center for Social Communication] is also abortionist, and [the Center for] Human Rights Augustin Pro is also abortionist.” Although some of the groups were once Catholic, they no longer are, Serrano said, adding that they have embraced Liberation Theology, which is a socialistic movement condemned by the Catholic Church.

And what about many of the other 43 groups who are not only non-Catholic but ANTI-CATHOLIC? (Sample A, B, C)

Q14.  The CCCB Report of the Committee of Inquiry, recommended that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE provide in-house training for staff on Catholic Social Teaching? Are DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE staff not Catholic? Are they not versed in Catholic teachings? Why would CCCB make this recommendation?

A14.  As with our partnerships, Development and Peace human resource policies reflect inclusiveness and diversity. Development and Peace staff are recruited for their professional expertise and competence, not on the basis of their religious affiliation. In order to assure that our staff of all faiths are familiar with the values and principles of our work, training on Catholic Social Teaching is provided as part of our professional development human resource programs. The CCCB Report recommendation is a reaffirmation of this practice and an encouragement to the organization to ensure that all staff are familiarized with this important aspect of our work. In our open Canadian society, human rights legislation prohibits organizations from hiring practices that might be deemed discriminatory on the basis of race, gender, or religious belief.

So what you’re saying really is that the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development & Peace is really “Catholic in theory” only.  You don’t have enough professing Catholics and the ones that you do are either in the dark or willfully blind.

Q15.  Why has there been so little communication from DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE to the membership regarding this controversy? Why hasn’t DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE been more visible in defending itself? What does DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE intend to do to increase communication to membership?

A15. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is in the “business” of international solidarity and supporting programs for social justice in the Global South, not fighting unfounded rumors, accusations and innuendo. We were temporarily blindsided by these attacks, which took the organization completely by surprise and required our immediate and concerted response. This pulled us away from our critical work and disrupted a number of our regular operations and programs, during a period when we were under-resourced in our Communications department. We have tried to stay the course and for this reason have been slower in responding to our membership. We are now active in filling this communication gap.

It’s wonderful that you are filling in your communication gap. Perhaps it’s time to fill in your “sanctity of life” gap now too.

Q16.  This debate has raised issues that bring to the table questions relative to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s Mission, Vision and Values as well as its Policies and Procedures? How is the organization answering these legitimate questions?

A.16 Unfortunately this controversy arose in the midst of our annual Share Lent 2009 campaign. If the intent was also to disrupt and distract us from our work, that part succeeded. If another goal was to force DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE to quickly react and change the way we “do business” then our detractors have failed miserably. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has already been planning a Strategic Review of its fundamentals as well as its protocols and procedures and as launched a process that will be pursued throughout the year.   Such a review is the healthy part of the normal cycle of any organization.  We have embarked on a disciplined and democratic process that will involve our members and our key stakeholders and we will accomplish this task in the normal time frame that is required to ensure its  full success. Results of the review and planning will be widely disseminated to our membership, our donors, and our southern partners and will be available for all to view. We continue to value transparency as one of our key organizational values.  

I don’t think Development & Peace “gets it”.  We’re not going away…ever.  That means our allegations and our coverage of Development & Peace, including all of its scandalous and immoral operating tactics of funding pro-abort groups and other leftist radicals, will continue year after year until a thorough and complete pro-life ethic dominates the Church’s official charity agency.   The future is with the new social justice movement concerning unborn children, not with the Sandanistas of the Sixties.

A note on ‘code words’
Through a conspiracy-tinted lens…

Many of the communications put forth by the anti-abortion advocates and those contributors to the blogosphere with comments attacking the work of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE allege that, in describing our projects and our work with our partners in the Global South, we use ‘code words’ to disguise our “true” mission. According to the bloggers, project descriptions that involve words or terms such as ‘reproductive rights’, ‘gender’, ‘gender mainstreaming’, ‘reproductive health’, ‘women’s equality’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘empowerment of women’, are standardized ‘code words’ among pro-abortionists that simply mean ‘abortion’. This interpretation has led to some bizarre leaps of logic.

Most of these code phrases including “reproductive rights”, “reproductive health”, and even “women’s rights” are well known to pro-life activists to refer to contraception and abortion. They are used as euphemisms to advance the pro-abortion agenda in international population control circles and various United Nation and Canadian development agencies.  The evidence for this is so overwhelming and conclusive that it can hardly be challenged. But Development & Peace would never know this or even want to know the exact nature of these phrases because they would never dare ask their partners what they mean by them, for obvious reasons.   Ask them no questions, and the pro-aborts will tell them no lies. But, apparently,when you do ask them, sometimes you get an honest answer.  The most recent Development & Peace pro-abort/anti-family partner, the 43rd of the collection, the Industrial Labour Research and Information Group, was outed by Socon or Bust a few days ago.  LifeSiteNews picked up the story and conducted an interview with their director. Here is a small section of that interview:

But according to Leonard Gentle, the director of the Industrial Labour Research and Information Group (ILRIG), a South Africa-based D&P partner, the work of his organization includes offering support to the “abortion rights” movement.  “We believe in reproductive rights, we believe in the right of women to control their own bodies and make their own decisions about abortions, as an organization,” he told LSN on Tuesday. (Source)

Can anything be clearer?

For example, Father William McGrattan of London (Ontario) diocese has just been named as a new Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Toronto. One anti-abortion blog site (which has been particularly focused on DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE over the past year) reviewed Father McGrattan’s CV. Among his many activities and affiliations, Father McGrattan was a member of the Board of Directors of a small international development NGO with several projects in South Asia (India). A review of the NGO’s Website, which included descriptions of its projects, indicated that the NGO was very active in promoting the equality of women and men, and assuring that all of its projects promoted ‘gender mainstreaming’, which is terminology used in international development circles to mean that all projects and activities strive to ensure that both women and men are equal beneficiaries with equal access to the project’s resources. This could involve things such as, in the case of a micro-credit project, ensuring that women and men have the same access to group loans, and that the project ensures that loans are granted on an equitable basis to both women and men in equal proportion.

Yes, that is true. It could involve legitimate development activities, and I pointed that out in the blog post in question, taking great care to mention that such activities could be benign. Note the bolded section below from my entry:

Gender considerations have been mainstreamed in all SPED II activities, with results indicating less discrimination against women, and increased acceptance of women as decision-makers and participants in the community and in the home. Significantly, SAFP [Save A Family Plan] was invited to make a presentation at a CIDA Roundtable on Gender Equality at the Canadian High Commission in Delhi, India in March 2008.  (Source)

In and of itself, there is nothing very problematic in the above paragraph, but it’s the euphemisms that need to be picked out and examined to ensure that there is no advancement of radical feminist and pro-abort agendas.  The report makes mention of “gender” being “mainstreamed”.  This is a very akward sounding initiative, at the very least, and it could smack of a certain feminist agenda, at worst.  As a minimum, it deserves further investigation.  In their program called “SPED-II: A Community Driven Initiative for 2006-2009, they engage in funding an initiative called “gender mainstreaming”.  Their Spring 2006 newsletter tells us that one of their objectives is: “to empower and strengthen the capacities of community and their grass root organizations for improving access to local resources and for addressing local socio-cultural, gender, environment, and other development issues by participating in local governanace process and networking.” Although this agency does much good and is even funded by well-meaning but ignorant Catholics (gee where have we seen this before?), there could be a serious problem with the initiative of “gender mainstreaming”, which they list in the same newsletter.

The blogsite described ‘gender mainstreaming’ as a development practice ‘code word’ for promoting abortion, allegedly on the basis that promoting the equal and equitable status of women undermines the traditional family structure and encourages women to seek abortions.

False. I never stated that “Gender Mainstreaming” promoted abortion per se, but it is a problematic phrase, as many pro-life organizations have pointed out.  Nevertheless, I was very careful to point out in the blog post that:

It is unclear, however, whether the “gender mainstreaming” funded by SAFP is identical in nature to the “gender mainstreaming” promoted by the U.N.  More pointed and specific questions need to be asked, and an investigation of  SAFP needs to be conducted to answer this question. 

I provided this caveat even though SAFP made some disturbing observations concerning gender being a “socially constructed difference”, with no effort to distance themselves from this view, much less criticize it.

As a result of projects in India administered by a small NGO on whose Board of Directors the new Auxiliary Bishop sat as a member, Bishop McGrattan was labeled as a being a “pro-abortionist”.

That is not true at all. In point of fact, I cautioned readers not to jump to any conclusions regarding Bishop McGrattan’s views on either the problematic practices at St. Joseph’s hospital concerning the termination of human life or the “gender mainstreaming” issue at Save A Family Plan:

We do not know the extent of Fr. McGrattan’s involvement in the formulation and application of the moral decisions concerning fetal euthanasia which has been going on at St. Joseph’s.  Nor do we have any idea if Fr. McGrattan knows about the sinister side of “gender mainstreaming” and Save A Family Plan’s involvement.  I would like to think that Fr. McGrattan has not played any direct role in knowingly supporting either of these scandals.

This can hardly be construed as alleging that Bishop McGrattan is “pro-abortion”. 

But then again, Development and Peace has shown that it is not too concerned for the truth.  For Development & Peace, like the unborn child, the truth simply gets in the way of “social justice”.


21 thoughts on “D&P Lashes Out With Wild Accusations

  1. They’re getting desperate.

    Another letter writing campaign to the bishops needs to be undertaken. We need to ask the bishops if they agree with D&P’s assessment that being “pro-life” is on par with being “a radical right-wing extremist”.

    Sending out that letter was a big mistake by them…..they are hanging themselves with their own rope.

  2. I can’t believe they wrote that screed. It’s rather unbelieveable. But then again, the fact that this has gone on this long is even more unbelieveable.

    Tactically, this was a huge blunder. I guess they think they can email this garbage to the parishes and that everyone is going to be receptive. Obviously that is not the case. Thier Q&A response is not on their website. I guess they thought they could keep it a “secret” with their supporters.

  3. Shocked!

    These groups are part of the far right wing fringe element of North American society and have themselves been associated with groups and individuals who have resorted to violence to publicize their cause and achieve their objectives.

  4. Actually Andy, what I am reading here is true. You are right wing and you and Socon are against rights for women. You also make accusations that are false.

    The best part is, only a few people follow these site.

    All this is true and nothing you can say changes this fact.

  5. I don’t think you know Andy’s political leanings, McGuire. I think you’re confusing right wing with prolife. You know, what Catholic’s are suppose to be. You do remember what Catholics are don’t you?

  6. Susan

    What are you about? You never make meaningful arguments here. Your practice seems to be to insult people.


    1. Development and Peace has made serious allegations against groups like Socon – these allegations have not been refuted.

    2. By the tone of your arguments the participants on this sight are considered radically right wing and are certainly on the fringe of public opinion

    3. The posts from this site are definitely against women’s rights.

    4. The opinions here never change, no matter how considered the debate. Everything here is black and white good = agree with Pacheo; bad = disagree with Pacheo

    Finally, who are you to tell anyone what a Catholic is supposed to be? What qualifications do you have that allow you to make judgement on what Catholics should think?

    Your comments show profound arrogance.

  7. Nonsense! McGuire. Shear nonsense.

    D&P has not made SERIOUS anything. They have spewed out allegations expecting the rest of us to belief everything they say without proof. Evidence, where’s the evidence?

    D&P is trying to use the old ploy of ‘the best defense is a good offense.’ That’s D&P’s lame game plan. Obviously they can’t refute the evidence stacked against them so they’re using the only avenue left to them. Anything to throw the hounds off the scent!

    You have your head in the secular world, McGuire. Abortion isn’t a difference of left v right political views. Abortion is about murder and murder is not a women’s right.

    This site stays true to the teaching of the Catholic Church and it’s by the teaching of the Catholic Church that I called your Catholicity into question. (You should take particular notice of #2272 in the following)

    Catechism of the Catholic Church – The fifth commandment



    2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

    2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

    You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

    2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

  8. Paul,
    Your labels don’t really interest me. I’m more interested in what Jesus Christ thinks of me. To ensure I’m “ok” with Him, I have embraced the teachings of His Church in their entirety. That includes recognizing that abortion is the killing of innocent human life and as such it is intrinsically evil. Do you accept this teaching? By the way, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to answer that one…I think we all have a pretty good idea where you stand. But please do correct me, if I’m wrong.

    Guess what, it’s not social justice or pro-life….you have to be both. Do you believe they’re mutually exclusive?

    With regards to women’s rights, just to be clear am I right to assume that you think women have a right to abortion? I don’t think they do, and by the way neither does the Catholic Church.

    As regards to your later comments, John has actually refuted all of the allegations. I invite you to re-read his post.

    By the way, for such an insignificant blog, you seem to come by quite often. Maybe not quite so insignificant.

  9. What qualifications do you have that allow you to make judgement on what Catholics should think?

    Have you ever noticed that leftist Catholics in the Church come back to this argument when someone quotes Church teaching to them and they don’t agree.

    You don’t need qualifications to know Catholic teaching.

  10. Thanks for the comments.

    The allegations are out there and no one has done anything to refute them. To me, they seem very believable I think you should be very concerned now about your own reputation.

    Susan: D&P is trying to use the old ploy of ‘the best defense is a good offense.’ That’s D&P’s lame game plan. Obviously they can’t refute the evidence stacked against them so they’re using the only avenue left to them. Anything to throw the hounds off the scent!

    Do you really see yourself as a hound?

    this is what right wing groups like Socon and lifesite do. Not credible, not listened to, not important, not helpful.

    I stay on this site to be a witness to the hypocrisy of the far right wing.

    You need to be aware that you are on the far right of the political and religious spectrum and that while some people support your views, the vast majority of Canadians and catholic Canadians do not support your views.

    You also need to recognize that in your ardor to promote your political and religious views you are playing with the truth.

    This is not a game, this is not just some little hobby. What you are doing is wrong, not damaging, but wrong. I know you will not listen to this and that you will insult me as usual, but i am still here as a witness to your wrongful acts.

    Have a good night

    see you in Church.


  11. Paul,

    1. To make allegations stick, you need something called “evidence”. If you keep spouting mere allegations against me or LSN, or keep merely denying the evidence levied against D&P, people will simply write you off as a fool. Neither of us want that. So, please, please, produce the evidence and shame the devil. Remember D&P’s laughable accusation of “violence” you read above? Where is the EVIDENCE to back it up? On the other hand, did you see that section I cited regarding the smooth $130K D&P funnelled to the radical and VIOLENT leftists at the Summit of the America’s? That’s the kind of evidence we’re looking for, Mr. McGuire.

    2. Credibility is a function, in part, of the quality of the evidence one produces. It is unfortunate that you cannot seem to grasp this idea, although it does explain why you say what you say.

    3. Being Right Wing or Left Wing is not the central issue. D&P’s tacit approval of the abortion-pushers is. There is a lot of room in the Catholic Church for political views. I tend to the right of the political spectrum, but there are many Catholics who tend to the Left. But within this spectrum, the Magisterium spells out what the boundaries are. One of the boundaries you cannot cross, and still call yourself a faithful Catholic, is on the issues of abortion and contraception which have been condemned as heinous crimes against humanity. This isn’t John Pacheco’s opinion. It’s the Catholic Church’s definitive teaching on the subject. If you think you can justify D&P’s actions from a moral point of view, please, please, why don’t you explain to us how you can. 🙂

    4. Whether or not we have the support of “most Canadians” or “most Catholics” is hardly the question (although Canadians are becoming increasingly more conservative, if you have noticed some recent articles in the News recently). Our Faith and Our Morality are not determined by holding up our fingers and seeing which way the wind is blowing. We examine our consciences in light of the official teaching of the Catholic Church…which you are transgressing in a most grievous way and endangering your immortal soul.

    5. As it stands now, you’re a false witness, witnessing to a failed and erroneous theological and philosophical world view. Not one of D&P’s propagandists has ever tried to defend the actions of D&P from a theological or factual perspective…which really means that your efforts, and the efforts of D&P, are simply a smoke-screen to buy time, hoping that this whole thing will blow over somehow. Not sure how you can naively think that, really, because, at the end of the day, only one of our views is going to be left standing. And it won’t be the one belonging to the SJers. For what does the Darkness of the Death-Peddlers in the Global South have to do with the Light of the Gospel of Life?

  12. No, McGuire, I don’t think of myself as a hound. I borrowed the symbolism from Francis Thompson’s poem “The Hound from Heaven.” I guess it went over your head.

    The Catholic Church is not a political entity. It’s not a matter of being left or right. It’s a matter of being true to the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you want to know what is right and wrong read your catechism. But I think you know that, I think the evil you promote is calculated.

  13. Hi John

    I will address my comments to you. Participants in this discussion that like to call me ‘evil’ can’t be replied to.

    Much of our discussion centers around evidence. I agree, evidence is important. I really wish you could have traveled with the delegation that went to Mexico to investigate the Lifesite allegations.

    The report that was produced by the group stated that based on evidence, the Mexico groups were not associated in any way with abortion.

    As a result of the investigation, the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops did establish an ad hoc committee to ensure that Development and Peace upholds the Catholic values on which it was established.

    The work is on-going.

    The current position of the Bishops is that Development and Peace should be supported this Saturday and Sunday which is Solidarity Sunday.

    We are planning for a national collection of $10 million.

    I would say there is evidence in the proceedings of the task force.

    If you don’t accept the word of the Bishops, I think it is important for you to publicly state on Socon that you don’t support or trust the Bishops.

    I would be curious to see what you have to write about this. As I wrote, evidence is an important part of this discussion.

    One quick point – there has been a great amount of work done to establish the theological underpinnings of Development and Peace. This work has been done by D&P’s theology committee which in turn works with the CCCB theological committee.

    Finally, I accept that you are an intelligent person. I am too. I think all arguments made should not call this into question. I grasp all the subtle and not so subtle points of this discussion. We should not be exchanging personal barbs – that simply is not polite.



  14. Paul,

    Let’s get a few things straight.

    There are 43 pro-abort/anti-family groups around the world identified as partners of D&P. Some of these groups activities are more outrageous than others, but they all are with the anti-family Agenda in one respect or another.

    The Mexican groups are also definitively pro-abort. Regarding the white-wash “investigation”, I have refuted the report’s findings in a four part series here.

    But to address your point about the current status of the Investigation’s report.

    First of all, Bishop Martin Currie, one of the bishops who went on that trip to Mexico, admitted when actually confronted with the evidence:

    “I just should have followed up more.”

    The archbishop also noted that in meeting with the bishops of Mexico and one of their experts on bioethical matters, the Mexican bishops’ expert, Dr. Pilar Calva, had indeed indicated serious concerns with the groups in question. When asked why those concerns of Dr. Calva were not mentioned in the report, Archbishop Currie said he thought they were in the report. “I think they were,” he said. (Source) {Editor’s note: No they weren’t.}

    So, right there, you have one of the bishops who went on the Mexico trip undercutting the reports findings and admitting that he should have followed up more. And you have him saying that he believed Dr. Calva’s negative comments were in the report when, in fact, they were not – which again proves the report was a farce.

    Then you have Archbishop Prendergast publicly challenging Archbishop Weisgerber at the Plenary in October that “Business will not be as usual” about D&P’s current mandate and receiving support from Archbishop Tom Collins. This was well AFTER the report was released.

    And then you had the establishment of the current “Ad Hoc” Committee which was a direct result of this fiasco to actually address how D&P funds the pro-abort groups.

    All of these points are significant.

    As far as the trust and support I place in the Bishops, I will say that my support and trust will depend on how they ultimately decide on the fate of Development & Peace. I do have hope that there are enough solid bishops to do the right thing. And I know more than you do on this front. 🙂

  15. My comments are merely as you put it – a social call. I do not speak for Development and Peace.

    You are going against the current stance of the CCCB – which you claim to know so much about.

    You should be more clear and honest and come out publicly and say you are opposed to the Bishops.

    You are trying to be clever here. Why not be honest and say you do not agree with their current stance?

    They support Development and Peace.

  16. Mr. McGuire,

    Where have you been the past 15 months?

    I have been most clear and honest about my opposition to the bishops on a number of issues on this blog, not the least of which is D&P.

    This is hardly a secret or a surprise.

    Now that I have been forthright with you, please be so kind as to have the integrity to supply the evidence concerning the allegation of association with “violence”. Thanks.

  17. I think you are hiding here in your posts. Why make your stance on the Bishops more public?

    The Bishops are taking a reasoned approach and as a good Canadian Catholic, it is important for you to show support for your Church leaders.

  18. My “stance” on the Bishops cannot possibly be more public, Paul.

    I am not a lapdog of the Bishops or its bureaucrats. That’s the same kind of problem that got us in the homosexual-teenage boy sex abuse scandal we find ourselves in today. Is this the kind of blind support that you want me to show support for?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
1 ⁄ 1 =