CAFOD vs. Poor Charities

THE EDITOR

More than once down the years, this magazinehas called upon the local hierarchy to dissolve CAFOD: its condom-touting CINO (Catholic In Name Only) Agency for Overseas Development. Fanciful calls one and all, to be sure, since CINO bishops naturally foster and fund CINO organisations that mirror their own mockery of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, our baptismal obligation before doctrinal and moral corruption demanded our denunciations and appeals to the better angels of the episcopal nature – notably in our January 2005 editorial.

Titled "Contributing to CAFOD is a Sin!", that widely disseminated essay triggered total panic and division in episcopal ranks. Ultimately, as documented in the March 2005 editorial ("1984 Revisited"), the bishops' conference sent hysterical letters to clergy throughout the land decrying Christian Order while failing to address our devastating case against its "Agency".

Since then, scandal has continued to envelope CAFOD like a sulphurous cloud.

More recently and typically, its notorious theological adviser, Tina Beattie, joined other "concerned Catholics" (read: "Catholics" who deny what it is that makes them Catholic) in signing a 2016 letter of protest to the pro-life Polish Bishops’ Conference. It declared that "early, safe and legal abortion is essential", promoted contraception, and espoused culture-of-death absurdities such as: "Making abortion illegal does not save the lives of unborn children." (As verified by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2017, anti-abortion laws in Northern Ireland alone have saved 100,000 lives!)

The evil appeal even dared to co-opt the Mother of God into its contraceptive/abortive designs, depicting a "pro-choice" Immaculata: "Mary was free in deciding whether or not to conceive a child. Many women and girls do not enjoy such freedom." [Catholic Herald, 25/4/16].

That Ms Beattie's ties with CAFOD were not summarily and publicly cut for her part in that outrage says it all.

As does CAFOD's new director, Christine Allen.

Her appointment late last year caused an outcry among Catholic pro-lifers familiar with her history. SPUC veteran John Smeaton, for one, alerted LifeSiteNews to her previous 11-year stint in charge of another CINO charity called Progressio.

"This is a surprising appointment to say the least," he proffered tongue in cheek, fully aware of its utter predictability. "Progressio has a simply appalling record on matters relating to the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching." By way of shocking example he noted that under Allen’s leadership two of Progressio’s partner-organisations supported the "See Change" campaign to strip the Holy See of its permanent status at the United Nations. "See Change" is run by culture-of-death front group Catholics for Choice; a CINO pro-abort lobby not recognised by any diocese as a legitimate Catholic organisation.

Mr Smeaton went on to explain that one of the two Progressio partners supporting "Sea Change," COMUS (Woman and Health Collective) in the Dominican Republic, was shamelessly described by Allen's Progressio as "a non-profit-making organisation which has been working since 1984 to defend the sexual and reproductive rights of Dominican women in rural and urban areas." Indeed, COMUS lobbied its country's legislature to decriminalise abortion and protested the government's decision to declare 25 March, the feast of the Annunciation, as the Day of the Unborn Child.

The other problematic partner supporting "See Change" was Nicaragua’s Meeting Points Foundation, which in turn partners with the demonic International Planned Parenthood through its Guttmacher Institute. Allen's Progressio described the Nicaraguan Foundation as "a platform from which to take on and debate different themes... among others, it deals with the themes of health and sexual and reproductive rights." Accordingly, the Foundation campaigned against the closing of a loophole in Nicaraguan law which allowed for abortion.  

Allen herself has criticised the Church for condemning the use of condoms. LifeSite reports that as director of Progressio, she wrote in the UK’s socialist Chartist magazine that the Church’s messages about respect and fidelity are overlooked because of "its apparent intransigence that seems obsessed with the condom." She hoped the Church would make an exception to the rule to prevent the spread of HIV. (A baseless culture-of-death cliché, the immorality and futility of condom use was set out in our January 2005 editorial.)

Thus, the Allen-CAFOD hook up perpetuates the corrupting cycle of dissent and capitulation (to the world, the flesh and the devil) that we originally documented and analysed in 2005. Despite their readiness to bury their heads and ignore the public scandals, however, it is not the rank-and-file staff and volunteers that bear major responsibility but our bishops; each of whom will wear the weightiest millstones at Judgment. For, CAFOD itself is merely one more egregious symptom of the heterodox and heretical ideas they have fostered in their formative institutions for decades.

Often exposed and critiqued in these pages, even the likes of Allen, Beattie, et. al. are worldly products of this systemic Modernism; souls who have never known the Faith of our Fathers. There is culpability, of  course. Free will is a constant. But it explains why they truly think they are Catholics and not protestantised CINOs.

Asked by the Catholic Herald if her opinions were "compatible with leading a Catholic agency," and whether she thought abortion was always wrong, Allen was unable to answer with a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.  A telling non-response, since "anything more than this [yes or no] comes from evil," warned Our Lord. Instead, she replied that she understood the expectations of her in the new role and that her "commitment to Catholic teaching is undimmed."

She should have said: 'commitment to my Modernist understanding of Catholic teaching' — but she's never read Pascendi!

Neither have most bishops who heartily affirm dissent!

Safe and smug in his Pascendi-free bubble zone, Bishop John Arnold, the Chairman of CAFOD’s Board of Trustees, sought to quell the alarm by informing the Catholic Herald that "Cafod’s Trustees fully endorse Allen's appointment, which has been greeted with joy by Cafod staff and supporters." No doubt. Dumbed-down souls unable to distinguish mere belief from the virtue of Catholic faith obliviously sacrifice the latter for the building of 'a better world' — "with joy," and often in tandem with murderous merchants of "sexual and reproductive rights." Such ignorance also explains why the scandals fail to stem the flow of complicit contributions.

Christian Order has received a copy of the financial survey reproduced on the inside-front cover of this edition [— also at the end of this editorial]. Originating in Arundel & Brighton, it compares representative Catholic charities in England and Wales.

The 2017 statistics show six charities, most being active overseas, ranging from the largest to the pontifical Missionary Servants of the Poor [MS], whose UK income was £52,500. Although no comment is provided, on the basis of the bare facts and figures which suggest a wasteful monopoly, readers can come to but one familiar conclusion: the hierarchy should derail and dissolve its CAFOD gravy train.

CAFOD’s income was £50 million, dwarfing that of all other charities, even Aid to the Church in Need [ACN] £12 million, Little Way Association [LWA] £3¼ million and slightly less for Life. Moreover, £18 million of CAFOD’s income came from British taxpayers, although the Government has finally promised to curtail all overseas aid.  

More than £19½ million poured in from churches and schools against the aggregate of £600,000 for others, with no collections for LWA or MS. At £7 million, CAFOD also grabbed 75% of legacies. Catholics left £25,240 to Life, nothing to MS.

Worse, while five charities sent upwards of 93% of income to the needy, CAFOD’s admitted figure was only 83%, partly because £4½ million was squandered on political propaganda.  Its total wage-bill was £17 million, which is tenfold that of ACN or Life, while St Francis Leprosy Guild employed a part-timer on £8,000.  Four charities have unpaid directors.

Already among CEOs criticised by the Charity Commission in 2013 for bloated salaries, the head of CAFOD got £121,331 in pay and benefits, especially non-contributary pension; CAFOD’s overall pension scheme liability is £770,000. Six of the 477 staff (Life has 74) earned more than £60,000-£70,000, enjoying a purpose-built, eco-friendly building in central London that cost £11 million. The other five have cramped or run-down offices elsewhere. 

CAFOD dominates through hard-sell, lavishing almost £6 million on fund-raising, sixfold what the others spent together, and employing (it seems) not five but six press officers; the others have two, one or none at all. Moreover, it can mobilise 6,000 unpaid helpers in most parishes against the 221 volunteers who assist the rest, including a couple at the tiniest charities. 

During Lent, therefore, we might at least remind priests and people of good will that there are better value, more needy, truly Catholic alternatives to omnipotent/omnipresent CAFOD.

And remind them, too, that funding/enabling dissent is still a sin!

* * * * *

WHAT THE WISE PARISH PRIEST WILL KNOW ABOUT GIVING

Back to Top