Talk:Catholic Relief Services

message: The scandals section reflects accurate and important information pertaining to a Catholic organization.  If there is a dispute regarding the use of certain words or phrases, then by all means, edit the words.  But the information is pertinent to the organization itself.  If the information is disputed, then by all means ... add counter information and citations.  But don't merely delete the section because you don't like it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicMan2016 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: LifeSiteNews, RedState, and the Lepanto Institute are not acceptable reliable secondary sources for these kinds of claims. Find better sourcing. And use inline citations, not external links. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandals section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Relief Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818083512/http://orb.crs.org/ to http://orb.crs.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124105441/http://education.crs.org/stories_photos.cfm to http://education.crs.org/stories_photos.cfm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328105804/http://uspartners.crs.org/haiti-resources/haiti-anniversary-brochure.pdf to http://uspartners.crs.org/haiti-resources/haiti-anniversary-brochure.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129110000/http://www.give.org/seal.asp?ID=3411112008 to http://www.give.org/seal.asp?ID=3411112008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since 2007, Catholic Relief Services has been the subject of a number of scandals and allegations regarding its funding relationships and activities.  Various news sources and researchers have traced CRS's funding practices and grant-related activities to support for abortion and contraception.
* In April 2008, theologian Germain Grisez, a harsh critic of Pope Francis, noted that in 2007, Catholic Relief Services had established policy on its HIV related projects which included the provision of "full and accurate information" on condoms.  CRS's position paper states that "CRS-supported projects should provide full and accurate, age-appropriate information about HIV prevention strategies including abstinence, fidelity and condoms in all of its HIV projects.  However, these projects cannot purchase, distribute or promote condoms with funds obtained from CRS."  The policy paper also said that "All information provided about the use of condoms must be medically and scientifically accurate and include the public health benefits and failure rates of condom use."
* In the same article, Grisez pointed out that CRS included a flipchart in its educational materials which promoted condom use. A cover-letter from CRS's Chief of Party, Jared M. Hoffman claims that "The comprehensive and accurate information on prevention contained in this material is consistent with CRS policy, and we are confident that the flipchart will be useful in all settings, requiring only minor adaptations to ensure cultural competence.”  However, even though Hoffman claims that the flipchart is consistent with CRS policy, he also notes that "“CRS has chosen not to include the CRS or AIDSRelief logo on the flipchart, due to the potential sensitivity of the information contained in these materials among Church partners.”  Not only does the flipchart promote condom use as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV (in contradiction with Catholic moral teaching), but it also promotes artificial birth control, also in conflict with Catholic moral teaching.  The flipchart says on page 132, "If the client and partner do not want to have a baby,  explain that you can give them information about family planning choices."
* In July 2012, Life Site News broke the story of CRS giving $5.3 million to CARE International, a contraception and abortion-promoting organization.
* August 2, 2012, Red State revealed that CRS is a dues-paying member of COREgroup, an organization that pushes contraception.
* On August 14, Red State also revealed that CRS is a dues-paying member and on the executive committee of MEDiCAM, an organization that pushes contraception and abortion in Cambodia.  In fact, a CRS regional director was a member of the planning committee for MEDiCAM when it created a policy paper for 2011 indicating the intention to train abortion-providers.
* On September 6, 2012, Life Site News revealed that CRS had written several documents promoting condom use.
* In 2013, American Life League proved that CRS provided $64 million to organizations distributing contraception, committing abortion, and performing sterilizations.
* In July 2013, Life Site News reported that CRS had contributed $2.7 million to a population-control organization called Population Services International (PSI).  PSI, which was founded by an international pornographer, provides abortion, contraception and sterilization to poor people in third world countries.
* In January 2015, CRS was discovered to have been involved in the implementation in a Planned Parenthood style sex education program called "My Changing Body."  Even though CRS responded to the allegations, the response from CRS failed to address some of the more serious aspects of the claims.
* In March 2015, Population Research Institute and the Lepanto Institute published a joint investigative report on CRS's PEPFAR-funded project in Kenya called "Support and Assistance to Indigenous Implementing Agencies (SAIDIA)".  According to this report, not only did CRS implement a contraception-promoting program in Kenya called Healthy Choices II, but when confronted with this information, CRS's response was to collaborate with PEPFAR to have the public record altered so as to expunge any reference to Healthy Choices II under CRS's project.  CRS immediately responded to the report, denying everything and questioning the methodology of the field investigator.  However, documentation with CRS's letterhead obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that CRS's denials are patently false.
* Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that CRS implemented a condom-promoting program called Shuga.  CRS responded to this allegation as well by confirming that "The SAIDIA FY2011 annual report to CDC correctly notes that the video was used as part of the abstinence and be faithful (AB) activities in FY2011, but stopped at the end of quarter three when CRS learned the materials were being used and were not appropriate for use within our programming."  However, CRS's claims to have protested against the use of Shuga are again contradicted by documents bearing CRS's letterhead which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.  According to these FOIA documents, CRS ended the Shuga program, not because it was morally objectionable, but because it was no longer implementing non-evidence based behavioral interventions.  Shuga was discontinued along with at least seven other programs.  In fact, in April 2012, CRS submitted to PEPFAR its continuation grant application for year five of the SAIDIA project.  On page 342 of the FOIA documents is a very clear statement from CRS about how it is considering both Shuga I and II for year five of the SAIDIA project.  CRS said in its grant application to PEPFAR, “SAIDIA is considering Shuga I and II to help address the gap particularly in ages 17-19 years.  Shuga I and II addresses issues of multiple concurrent partnership, peer pressure, alcohol and substance use and status knowledge among youth.”  Not only does this contradict CRS’s claim that they “informed CDC that SAIDIA would not use this video within our abstinence and fidelity work,” but it calls into question its last line about continually reviewing and adjusting programs to ensure that they are in line with Catholic teaching.
* In June 2015, a CRS executive was discovered to be in a same-sex marriage.
* In May 2016, an employee of CRS was found to be celebrating same-sex marriage on social media.
* In June 2016, the Lepanto Institute published a report analyzing CRS's funding request to congress on behalf of USAID and PEPFAR, both of which promote the use of hormonal contraception and condoms.
* In August 2016, four employees of Catholic Relief Services were found to be "standing with Planned Parenthood."
* In August 2016, the Lepanto Institute published a report analyzing the public record for political contributions by employees of CRS.  The report found that  98% of CRS employees provided contributions to pro-abortion candidates.
* In October 2016, the Lepanto Institute published a  58 page report detailing CRS's participation in the distribution of 2.25 million units of abortifacient contraception and condoms in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
* According to leaked letters obtained by Life Site News, prior to the publication of the Lepanto Institute's October 2016 report on CRS, Archbishop Coakley (then chairman of CRS's board of directors) preemptively attacked the forthcoming report.  Abp. Coakley told his brother bishops that the new report would likely "lack a relationship with the truth," and as evidence, produced two identical letters of support; one from the Conference of bishops in the Congo, and the other from the conference of bishops in Kenya.  These two identical letters were signed and dated 19 and 21 days (respectively) prior to the publication of the Lepanto Institute's report.  Abp.  Coakley then supplied, in the same memo to his brother bishops, a pre-written statement for bishops to use when asked about the Lepanto Institute's report.
The section as it stood previously was nowhere close to WP:NPOV. Reports that CRS activities may have been connected to abortion and contraception, for example, are perfectly valid controversies for a Catholic organization. At the same time, sources that target individuals for "standing with Planned Parenthood", the personal political donations of CRS employees, and the marital relationships of CRS employees are completely ridiculous for a serious encyclopedic article.
There is merit to discussing how other Catholic organizations find some of CRS' activities to be controversial, however the current section reads like a one-sided attack that practically quotes directly from blatantly anti-CRS sources. Sources which show various biases can be reliable and a valuable part of an article, but being neutral does not mean simply repeating what a source says. Quotes like these were allowed to stand in the article since at least 2016: 
* "COREgroup, an organization that pushes contraception."
* "CARE International, a contraception and abortion-promoting organization."
* "CRS had contributed $2.7 million to a population-control organization called Population Services International (PSI).  PSI, which was founded by an international pornographer, provides abortion, contraception and sterilization to poor people in third world countries" (this one is the most egregious NPOV violation)
* "...when confronted with this information, CRS's response was to collaborate with PEPFAR to have the public record altered so as to expunge any reference to Healthy Choices II under CRS's project... However, documentation with CRS's letterhead obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that CRS's denials are patently false."
Given how blatant the NPOV violations were, I have removed the controversies section for the time being and relocated it here. I am hoping that other editors, especially those more familiar with CRS and other Catholic NGOs, can craft a new section that better covers issues like CRS actions supporting (or being seen to support) abortion and contraception against Church teachings.  21:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section could probably be cleaned up by somebody using good editorial judgment. Apparently, there is a valid controversy going on here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , well, it’d need reliable sources to be covered, and most of the sources in the article aren’t. I can see maybe a sentence or two, but the current mass listing is a major UNDUE violation. 9000 bytes of text over it is pretty excessive, especially when sourced to fringe/partisan press. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I think better explanation of why this text qualifies as a mass of NPOV violations is needed. I can certainly see a number of problems with the text, but it's not at all clear how the four quotes listed by RA0808 are NPOV violations when taken at face value, not even the one which he describes in bolded text as "the most egregious NPOV violation". I certainly acknowledge that providing a clear explanation of why the text should be removed won't stop editors from periodically restoring it, but having transparent reasoning for removing a huge chunk of sourced text is still of value.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of controversies section for egregious NPOV violations 

message: I want to know what CRS is doing for Ukraine. I want to donate to this country, but no where do I find anything about CRF’s support for the Ukrainians. 
What are you doing to help Ukraine so I can donate through CRS?
JoAnn Vorst 206.127.51.57 (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine