The Lepanto Institute

by 37 Comments

Salesian Missions Promote Masturbation, Contraception

Salesian Missions Report 02

The Lepanto Institute was recently asked by a supporter if the Salesian Missions was a “safe charity” to donate to.  Not knowing the answer, Lepanto Institute conducted an investigation of the Salesian Missions’ program called “Life Choices,” and discovered that this program is quite similar to just about anything Planned Parenthood would publish.  The program recommends masturbation, encourages condom use, employs emotionally dangerous “role-play” exercises, promotes contraception (including abortifacients like the morning after pill), and even provides contact information for teens to acquire condoms and contraception.  According to the Salesian Missions’ website, over 375,000 kids have been exposed to this program.  Click here for the full report in PDF format.

The Salesian Mission Office, under the guidance of the Eastern USA and Canadian Salesian Province, seeks to provide for the material and spiritual needs of poor and abandoned individuals, especially the young.  The Salesian Missions belong to the order started by St. John “Don” Bosco, the Society of St. Francis de Sales, commonly referred to as “Salesians.  Given what has been discovered, imagine what St. John Bosco would think with the order he founded contributing, not to the sanctification of youth, as was his own mandate, but to their corruption with these immoral programs.

In 2007, PEPFAR reported granting the Salesian Missions $56,599 for HIV prevention programs. Page 259 of this report shows that the Salesian Missions were responsible for providing information on condom use.

Salesian Missions Report 03

The Salesian Mission website verifies the implementation of the “Life Choices” program, focusing on reducing teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse and violence.

Salesian Missions Report 04

The Life Choices website for the Salesian Life Choices program in South Africa indicates that the Salesian Life Choices organization is operating “under the Salesian priests and brothers.”  In fact, one of the board members is a Salesian priest who is also the “Property Administrator of the Archdiocese of Cape Town, South Africa.”

Salesian Missions Report 06The following information will come directly from the Salesian Life Choices, “Youth Friendly HIV Counseling & Testing” manual. In this 65 page manual, the word “condom” is mentioned 71 times, and always in promotion of condom use.

Page 9 of the Youth Friendly HIV Counseling and Testing manual makes the intention of the manual clear with regard to the promotion of condoms, saying that “it is crucial that counselors change the stigma around condom use.” Page 36 calls on teens to “condomise,” which means to use a condom every time they have sex, including “anal, oral, vaginal, male-to-male, and female-to-female.” Note the word “choice” on the pictures of condoms. On the same page, a note says they encourage youth to use condoms, “not based on moral reasoning,” but “purely good sense.” It also encourages dental dams for oral sex and finger condoms for mutual masturbation.

Salesian Missions Report 07

Page 37 explains that the Life Choices program includes condom demonstrations. The note goes so far as to instruct counsellors to inform teens where they can obtain condoms. There are many other references to condom use in this manual, but these examples suffice to show an immoral encouragement coming from a an organization attached to a religious order.

Salesian Missions Report 08

Salesian Missions Report 09Now, we’ll switch to the Salesian Life Choices, “Dream 2 Be” manual for 9th grade peer-educators. In this manual, not only are condoms advocated for, but so also are abortifacient birth control pills, injectables, and the morning after pill. On page 16 is an extremely dangerous role-playing exercise where a 9th grade boy is paired with a 9th grade girl, and the two are supposed to have a discussion on whether or not to have sex, specifically stating that they should NOT discuss the morality of having sex outside of marriage. The danger in an exercise like this is that strong adolescent emotions will be evoked by this kind of role-play, potentially engaging immoral thoughts and out-of-class curiosity.But that’s not the worst of it.

On page 17, boys are encouraged to masturbate in order to satisfy sexual urges, and then to use condoms if they choose to have sex.

Salesian Missions Report 10

On page 18, in a discussion about HIV/AIDS, is a near pornographic image and young teens are told to “use condoms at all times.” There are many other serious problems with this manual, but these examples suffice to show the gravely immoral nature of this program.

Salesian Missions Report 11

Forgoing Catholic moral teaching altogether, rather than telling these kids that sexual intercourse is an act designed by God to be reserved for marriage, page 19 tells young adolescents that they should wait to have sex until “they are ready.” It also encourages them to use contraception, including abortifacients like the birth control pill and injectable contraception along with a condom.  It also tells them where they can get condoms and contraception, and even suggests obtaining abortifacient “emergency contraception” if they ever have “unprotected” sex. On the next page are phone numbers indicating where to obtain contraceptives, including emergency contraception.

In addition to promoting contraception and abortifacients in their program manuals, The Salesian Life Choices program publishes a youth newsletter, distributing about 15,000 copies to targeted schools. Several of these newsletters include STRONG support for contraception, including abortifacients.

Salesian Life Choices’ youth newsletter #1 includes a flow-chart illustrating that using a condom can help to avoid contracting HIV/AIDS.

Youth newsletter #3 warns that “unprotected sex” or sex without a condom, increases the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Youth newsletter #4 has an entire article devoted to encouraging the use of all forms of contraception, including abortifacients.

The website of the Salesian Missions indicates that, with funding from USAID, it has exposed 375,000 to the Life Choices program.

Conclusion

The project of the Salesian Missions called “Life Choices” is clearly not in line with Catholic moral teaching, however this report illustrates an even greater issue that merits further attention. It should be noted that the Salesian Life Choices program was only made possible through the donations from and partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Global Fund.

This isn’t the first time Catholic moral teaching has been compromised by Catholic aid agencies after receiving funds from organizations that promote contraception and abortion. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been caught time and again implementing programs against Catholic moral teaching through the funding of such organizations. After receiving funds from PEPFAR, CRS implemented a condom-promoting video series and a contraception-promoting curriculum in Kenya. In Rwanda, CRS tested a Planned Parenthood-style sex education program with funding from USAID. The problem is obvious: Funding from agencies intent on spreading immoral behaviors always come with a cost.

At this time, it is clearly not safe to contribute funds to the Salesian Missions until they divorce themselves from funding provided by government and immoral organizations. This report serves as further evidence that the mandate of Pope Benedict XVI in his 2012 motu proprio, On the Service of Charity, MUST be obeyed. Pope Benedict said that the “Bishop is to ensure that charitable agencies dependent upon him do not receive financial support from groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching.” Let us pray that Catholic aid agencies follow this mandate, providing for authentic charitable works that pew-sitting Catholics can be proud to fund.

This report has been sent to both the Salesian Order and the Salesian Missions six days prior to publication and no response was received.

 

 

by 6 Comments

Holy See Emphasizes Reservations on Sustainable Development Goals

Communist GoalsArchbishop Auza, the Apostolic Nuncio for the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, issued a new statement to the United Nations, emphasizing the reservations the Catholic Church has with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).  In the statement, the Archbishop clearly identified areas within the Sustainable Development Goals that will be used to promote abortion and birth control, and requested that these written reservations be entered into the official records of the meeting.  In part, Archbishop Auza’s statement said:

Vatican SDGs 01Mr President,

While agreeing with most of the goals and targets enumerated in the Agenda, the Holy See, in conformity with its nature and particular mission, wishes to make the following reservations on some of the concepts used therein.

1. Regarding the terms “sexual and reproductive health” and “reproductive rights”, the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embrace, each in their own way, the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which foster the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in the mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal-relationship between a man and a woman in accordance with moral norms. The Holy See does not consider abortion or access to abortion or abortifacients as a dimension of these terms.

2. With reference to the terms “contraception”, “family planning”, “sexual and reproductive health”, “sexual and reproductive rights”, “reproductive rights”, and any other terms regarding family-planning services and regulation of fertility concepts in the document, the Holy See reaffirms its well-known position concerning those family-planning methods which the Catholic Church considers morally acceptable and, on the other hand, family-planning services which do not respect the liberty of the spouses, human dignity and the human rights of those concerned.

It is indeed encouraging to see that the Holy See is attempting to make its concerns regarding sexual and reproductive health, as identified in the SDGs, more clear.  In June of this year, the Lepanto Institute wrote about a previous statement made by Archbishop Auza, which supported the SDGs “verbatim,” so it is good to see an expression of deeper concern with the SDGs.  However, while the Holy See does express proper concern about the intention of the UN to include abortion  in the SDGs (not as a form of birth control, but as a practice nonetheless), we would like to see a clearer and stronger condemnation of the UN’s stated objective of spreading artificial contraception through the SDGs.  For instance, paragraph one of the Archbishop’s statement only refers to abortion and abortifacients with regard to “sexual and reproductive health” and “reproductive rights.”  Why no condemnation of artificial contraception here, which is clearly also intended by these references?  Condoms, diaphragms, sterilizations, and other non-abortifacient means of contraception are clearly identified in the SDG’s in the subtext of Goal 5, where it defines “sexual and reproductive health” and “reproductive rights” “as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action.” Paragraph 94 of the Beijing Platform for Action clearly defines “reproductive health” as “ access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility“.  While the Vatican and certain Catholic countries may be able to force that definition into a Catholic understanding of NFP, the United Nations’ agencies, which will be implementing the SDGs, have no intention of applying a Catholic understanding to these terms.

Paragraph two of the Archbishop’s statement is needlessly ambiguous and lacking in the necessary condemnation of contraception.  The Archbishop says, “the Holy See reaffirms its well-known position concerning … family-planning services which do not respect the liberty of the spouses, human dignity and the human rights of those concerned.”  This wording is a far-cry from the very clear condemnation of Pope Paul VI of all forms of contraception in paragraph 14 of Humanae Vitae:

charity 0614. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Appealing to the “liberty of spouses” and human dignity and rights holds very little weight when it comes to the gravity of the intrinsically evil nature of contraception.  We encourage the Mission of the Holy See to the UN to take a stronger line with the UN with regard to contraception, perhaps even a declaration of intent to condemn the SDGs altogether as long as any support or promotion of abortion and/or birth control remains in them at all.

Let us continue to pray and fast for Archbishop Auza and Pope Francis.  In the mean time, send a message of encouragement to the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, thanking Archbishop Auza for reiterating the Vatican’s reservations regarding abortion in the SDGs, but also asking him to issue a more clear condemnation of all forms of contraception that are most certainly defined in the goals themselves.  In truth, due to the distinctly Marxist character of the SDGs, it would be best for the Holy See not to support them at all.

Tel: (212) 370-7885
office@holyseemission.org

by 18 Comments

CRS President Doubles-Down on Funding Contraception Providers, Employing Same-Sex ‘Married’ Executives

Carolyn WooIn a recent interview with John Burger of Aleteia, Dr. Carolyn Woo, president of Catholic Relief Services, doubled down on CRS’s commitment to maintaining dues-paying memberships in contraception and abortion spreading organizations, providing funds to abortion and contraception distributing organizations, and retaining the employment of a vice president who is a homosexual activist in a same-sex “marriage.” During the interview, Dr. Woo was asked, “CRS has been criticized by some for failing to live up to Catholic standards in some ways. What has been done in response?” Characterizing the just criticisms of concerned Catholics as “attacks,” Dr. Woo replied with three points.

“The type of attacks come in three forms. The first is: Why do we work with other organizations which don’t follow Catholic Church teaching?…

So when we have responsibilities for these types of activities, for the scope of these activities, if we don’t reach out to other partners who have coverage of those territories, we are basically leaving a big swath of population unattended. … If we don’t collaborate with other agencies, we are leaving those people without any hospitals or clinics or access to those medications.

Sometimes it’s, “Why do you belong to certain associations?” For example, the Cambodia Medical Association. It’s just like the American Medical Association. It’s very large, it covers all kinds of medical specialties, from malaria to nutrition to family planning. We belong because we need to find out what is the best treatment nowadays for nutrition and malaria and TB and chronic diseases. We do not attend the sessions for family planning. In fact, our Church partners use our membership to attend the sessions of the Cambodia Medical Association because we all need to know the parts that relate to us.

And also when we participate in family planning conversations, it’s to present natural family planning. If we are not there making our case, believe me, it would go away. Nobody would even ever know that there is something called Natural Family Planning, and that it works. CRS oftentimes is the only voice to say, “Wait a minute; this is our approach It’s different from yours, and this is our evidence that it works.” So we are actually making the voice of the Catholic approach acceptable in these secular organizations.”

In the first bolded comment, Dr. Woo categorically states that if CRS does not collaborate with other agencies, CRS is leaving people without any hospitals, clinics or access to medicine. This statement is completely false. The work of development and aid is an industry where corporate entities compete for grants. CRS is competing with World Vision, CARE Inc., Save the Children, the Futures Group, and a host of other similar organizations for grants from the Federal government and high-dollar foundations. If CRS was not willing to collaborate with enemies of the Body of Christ, CRS would not be able to obtain as many grants, but those grants would be won by other entities who would in turn provide the exact same service CRS would no longer be providing. So, the hospitals, clinics and medications would still reach people, the only difference is that the providers would be entities other than CRS.

The second and third bolded statements in Dr. Woo’s response are self-contradictory. In the first place, Dr. Woo claims that CRS does not attend the Cambodia Medical Association’s  sessions for family planning, but then she starts talking about what happens when CRS participates in family planning conversations.  Both statements cannot be true.

Furthermore, Dr. Woo misstated the deep concern pro-life leaders have had with CRS’s dues-paying membership with a Cambodian organization.  Dr. Woo mentioned the Cambodia Medical Association, however consistent concerns have been with CRS’s dues-paying membership with MEDiCAM.  What Dr. Woo knows about MEDiCAM (because Michael Hichborn personally explained and provided documented proof to Dr. Woo in November of 2012) is that CRS has indeed been involved in the development of MEDiCAM’s policy papers, which included plans for the expansion of access to abortion providers, the training of abortion providers, and the distribution of all forms of birth control, especially abortifacients.

Here is some of the information provided directly to Dr. Woo:

Dr. Sok Pun represented CRS on the Steering Committee of MEDiCAM in 2011.

medicam 1During MEDiCAM’s 2011 Annual General Meeting, Dr. Pun participated in a discussion on MEDiCAM’s position paper for 2011. As you can see in the screen capture below from MEDiCAM’s agenda, Dr. Pun represented both CRS and MEDiCAM’s Steering Committee in the discussion on that policy paper.

medicam 2

According to the minutes from the entire meeting, Natural Family Planning was NEVER a part of any of the discussions, and there are no objections to the radical abortion-expanding agenda of the meetings themselves. Furthermore, the draft of the policy paper, produced as a result of the meeting in which Dr. Pun participated, likewise never mentions NFP nor does it raise objections to the expansion of abortion.  What it DOES recommend, however, is to:

  • raise awareness of legalized abortion so as to lure more women to abortion clinics
  • train health providers on how to commit abortions
  • increase the number of so-called “safe” abortions in conjunction with the Millennium Development Goals.
  • promote intrauterine devices as the most “cost-effective” form of birth control.

medicam 3

And those recommendations made it right into the policy paper for 2011.  There is no record of objection from CRS and there is no record of introducing NFP as an alternative by CRS, either.

medicam 4

Dr. Woo knew all of this because the documents were personally hand-delivered to her and explained in great detail, and yet, in this interview she denied that CRS participated in conversations pertaining to family planning with the Cambodia Medical Association (which she misstated and likely meant MEDiCAM.)

Dr. Woo’s interview with Aleteia continues …

“The second one is that people accuse us of making contraceptives available or abortion and so on, and that is just absolutely not true. CRS refrains from any of those activities. There are grants where it may require the distribution of contraceptives. We refrain from participating in those grants. Or we seek special waivers so that we do not participate in those parts.”

Here are just a few of the recent findings against CRS:

In each of these cases, CRS was provided with grant money for the implementation of each of these programs and documents.

The last point Dr. Woo makes in response to concerned Catholics gives the appearance that CRS is going to retain the employment of a same-sex “married” vice president:

“Number three,…CRS has a senior person who is in a civil gay marriage, and the question is, “Is that a violation of Church teaching?” I just want to say we are working through this. Gay marriage, of course, is a very complex issue. The Church is very clear that marriage as a sacrament is a between a man and a woman open to procreation. There’s also the Church teaching on natural law. Those are the teachings. … Does it mean that the Church should not employ anyone who is in a gay marriage? Are we giving a blanket No?… If it’s not a blanket No, are there particular positions, such as positions that are ministerial in nature, positions which relate to the formation of the faith of young children at school? … While the teaching is clear, as it translates into practice there has not been defined a common approach for dealing with employment, particularly when the position is non-ministerial, when the person is not a Catholic, when the agency is not a school. So we’re in that area when there have been various steps forward, but not a clear path.

Civil marriage is protected by the State of Maryland and 36 other states, as well as DC, so we’re also dealing with a new intersection between in this case state law and Church teaching where the practice is being defined.”

For one thing, “gay marriage” is not a complex issue when it comes to the Church. It is an abomination before the eyes of the Lord. No matter which governments pretend to enact such a thing as law, what legal frameworks are erected around it, or what material consequences may arise from standing against it, the fact remains that Truth is Truth and evil must be opposed by the Catholic Church both in Her members and in Her institutions. There are plenty of other secular organizations that would be more than happy to employ a same-sex “married” executive, but such does not belong in Catholic institutions. Catholic Relief Services must remember that it is Catholic above all else, and that its first duty is to maintain the integrity of the faith. However, given its history of compromise by funding organizations that commit abortions, perform sterilizations, and distribute contraception, it’s willingness to help create policy papers that spread abortion without raising a hand in protest, its creation of documents that promote condoms, and its facilitation of contraception-promoting programs, it should come as no surprise that CRS would compromise its Catholic faith in favor of a more secular approach to aid and development with regard to a same-sex “married” vice president, either. So, perhaps it’s time for CRS to drop the charade and remove the word “Catholic” from its name. If obtaining government and foundation money is more important to CRS than bringing souls to Christ, or at the very least, not opening doors to wolves seeking to devour the faith of those CRS claims to serve, then it should continue its work as merely “Relief Services.”

 

by 4 Comments

Why is the CCHD funding a partner of Planned Parenthood?

CCHD PP 3

In just the last two weeks, we have been examining the grants and problems over at the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).  Our first major report was on the conflict of interest being practiced by the current director of the CCHD.  If you missed it, you can view that report here.  Last week, our investigative team discovered that a CCHD grantee in New York was actively involved in homosexuality activism and the promotion of Marxist communism.  And in case you missed that one, you can view that report here.

Today, the Lepanto Institute published a new profile on a CCHD grantee in Massachusetts called the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center, also known as United Neighbors of Fitchburg.  As it turns out, the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center was named on a Planned Parenthood Title X grant application as one of its “community partners.”  According to the grant application, a “community partner” with Planned Parenthood is “a referral partner for PPLM’s Title X health centers, and received a PPLM health services brochure, postcards, and magnets to distribute to community members.”  In other words, according to the application, Cleghorn has agreed to refer individuals to Planned Parenthood.  The question is, has such referral actually taken place?  It appears that it has.

The Youth Development Supervisor for Cleghorn is a woman named Delmarie Baez.  In January of 2014, Baez created a presentation on teen pregnancy which encourages teens to seek the advice of Planned Parenthood, especially “if the teen is scared to talk to their parent” because “Planned Parenthood is confidential.”  There is a lot more to this extensive profile, so we encourage you to review the documented facts here.

How is it even possible that this organization received a grant in 2014, considering the fact that the Reform CCHD Now coalition mailed a printed profile on this group to the local CCHD director, to the national CCHD director, and to all of the bishops in the country back in 2012?  In that profile, the Reform CCHD Now coalition revealed the facts about the Planned Parenthood Title X grant application that names Cleghorn as a community partner.  One would think that the CCHD would have examined this fact, and at the very least, quietly defunded the organization and barred them from future grants.  But now that Cleghorn’s youth development supervisor has actually created a presentation that confirms what the grant application says Cleghorn would be doing as a community partner, we have to wonder if the CCHD is just completely dense, or actually doesn’t mind that Cleghorn is working with Planned Parenthood.

We will be continuing to publish reports on CCHD grantees as long as the CCHD refuses to address the very serious violations of their own guidelines and Catholic moral teaching.  In the mean time, we encourage our readers to pray the Rosary daily for the leadership at the CCHD and for the bishops and priests involved.  Our battle is not against those involved in the problems of the CCHD … their souls and those following them are the treasures for which we are fighting.  Our enemy is the devil who is seeking to destroy the Church by misleading those individuals who either don’t or won’t allow themselves to understand the harm they are doing to the faithful.  So, please pray for them.  If we don’t, who will?

RECENT POSTS

FOLLOW THE LEPANTO INSTITUTE

Philippians 3:18

"For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ."