Dear Michael and National Council Members:
In advance of your meeting this week-end, I wanted to share with you my thoughts – which are still evolving – about all that has been happening with and within Development and Peace lately.
I have just woken up to the fact that as a delegate to the Ontario Provincial meeting (OPM), I in fact missed the boat on our opportunity to ask the questions that have been eating away at many of us, especially here in Ottawa. I have also just come to realize that our Diocesan Council (DC) was still suffering the effects of shock after the cancellation of Father Luis Arriaga’s solidarity visit. We in Ottawa were in a state of confusion and I think we were going through all the stages one usually attributes to mourning.
Even at the OPM, I think we were there - at least I was - hoping to “receive” enlightenment. Instead we should have asked for what we needed although I have to say that Bishop Paul-André Durocher was very kind to meet privately with our DC and respond to at least some of our questions.
On further contemplation and upon learning that our long-time partner Centro Prodh has been cut, I realize that I have questions that I should have raised with National Council members at the OPM and that I have for management as well. I also have some thoughts to share.
My questions are this:
1. Who decided to cut funding to Centro Prodh? Was Development and Peace directed to do so? If so, by whom?
2. Was there wrongdoing on the part of Father Luis or Centro PRODH that was the reason for this cut? If so, what was it? If not, why were they cut?
3. Was National Council involved in this decision? If not, why not?
4. What was the reaction from Centro PRODH? What have been the reactions of our other partners who have heard about this?
I have more questions and they keep popping up as I think more about this. Some days however I just don’t want to think about it at all.
The concerns that are weighing on me are many but I guess I worry most about what cutting off a partner says about our commitment to solidarity and our Catholic ideals. Isn’t the Christian way, when one is faced with a problem with one’s neighbour, to approach the person and talk about it and try to resolve it?
Why did we not try to work with Centro PRODH to solve whatever the problem was? I worry that this partner may have been sacrificed for expediency’s sake in reaction to the most vocal and relentless conservative social media sites. I also worry about the message that this decision sends to our other partners.
Another thing that worries me is the apparent lack of trust that the bishops have in Development and Peace. This has been apparent for some time and is worse now. We can’t just dismiss this. The fact that some of them seem so ready to believe certain social media as well as unsubstantiated comments from the bishop in Mexico but have a hard time believing representatives from the Catholic organization that their predecessors founded speaks to a fundamental problem. Why do they not trust us? Have we failed them in some way? Have we not delivered on things that they expected? And what about the bishops on NC – have they not kept their fellow bishops informed?
I realize that the timing of the cancellation of the Fr. Luis’ visit was just after a National Council meeting and that you will be discussing this and all its ramifications at this week-end’s meeting. I wonder however if there is a way to make decisions in between meetings. Granted there have been some communications from both management and NC but out here it doesn’t feel like much, especially when new developments keep happening and new questions pop up. Perhaps there needs to be a process you could call on in extra-ordinary circumstances so that you could ensure that members are kept fully in the loop on critical issues. What is happening of course is that members are turning to other sources - some of them very good - to try and understand. We need to hear what is happening from our elected representatives, what stand NC is taking on our behalf and what direction it is giving management.
Finally, regarding the possibility that a southern bishop or cardinal would have the right to approve a project/partner before Development and Peace could support it, this seems really extreme to me. I recall those times in our history when the Church was more aligned with the elite than with the poor and marginalized. How would we safeguard against this? I don’t think we can just naively rely on good intentions. Also, lay persons and movements are often out in front of issues before the establishment – whether spiritual, political or social. Would we not be in danger of failing to support life-giving and life-saving work that might rattle a few cages at first but eventually becomes recognized as right and good and necessary? And speaking of our movement, giving such a right to southern bishops whittles away at our rights as members. That is not to say that we should not solicit their input. We may learn a lot from them. It would seem to make more sense to do this in the early stages of feeling out a partner, when we are considering our first short-term contract with them.
There are other things too such as the apparent valuing of one segment of the life continuum over others by our most vocal critics. However, I think I will leave it at that. May the Holy Spirit guide all of you this week-end during your difficult deliberations as you make decisions that will affect our future. We will remember you in our prayers tomorrow night at our DC’s Annual General Meeting.
Sincerely,
Joan O’Connell
Ottawa, Ontario.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Development and Peace : the Letter from the Archdiocese of Mexico of 1 April
Crayon & Goupillon (blogsite) has obtained the whole and verbatim English translation of the letter from the archdiocese of Mexico addressed to the Secretary General of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. Pat Powers. This letter has served to justify the cancellation of the speaking engagements by Father Arriaga last April. Brief and harsh, the letter disowns completely the work of the PRODH Centre.
The letter is dated 1 April 2011. It is signed by Monsignor Guillermo Moreno Bravo, vicar general and Curia moderator for the archdiocese of Mexico. The CCCB refers to this letter in two public communications issued recently on the subject of the Development and Peace issue.
Here is the English translation of the letter:
“Cardinal Norberto Carrera has asked me to respond to your request for clarification regarding the PRODH Centre. This institution does NOT represent the views of the Church and is known for its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values.
With regards to the subject of defense of life, the organization has supported pro-choice groups and has promoted the so-called woman’s right to control her own body, against unborn life.”
On 4 April, the CCCB stated in a news release entitled “Commentary on the Cancellation of a Share Lent Speaker” that the “Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB),the Archdiocese of Ottawa and Development and Peace asked for clarifications from the archdiocese of Mexico regarding Father Arriaga and the PRODH Centre.” This is the response they received.
In a 4 May documented entitled “Commentary of the Canadian Catholic Bishops’ Conference regarding an interview on PROXIMO with Claude Lacaille, PME, the CCCB President, Bishop Pierre Morissette, referred to this letter in the following terms:
“After serious reflection, the Archbishop of Ottawa and the Executive Director of Development and Peace took the joint decision to cancel the speaking engagements organized [for Father Arriaga, the then director of the PRODH Centre] in order to avoid that a controversy distract attention from the Share Lent program. Mexican church authorities subsequently confirmed that they harboured serious concerns on the subject of the ProDH Centre. This information was brought to the attention of the General Secretary of the CCCB, who was required to communicate it to all the bishops, notably to the Archbishop of Ottawa, as well as to Development and Peace.”
According to this extract, the letter arrived after the decision to cancel the speaking engagements had already been taken. The letter is dated 1 April, on the same day that the diocese of Ottawa announced the cancellation of the speaking engagements of Father Arriaga. The CCCB’s communications department would not confirm on what date the letter from the archdiocese of Mexico was received.
On 25 May, the Jesuit provincials of the provinces of French Canada, English Canada and Mexico did nonetheless confirm their “support for the integrity of the work of the Miguel Pro Human Rights Centre and that of its director, Fr Luis Arriaga, an engagement that bears witness to the social teaching of the Catholic Church.”
The letter is very brief, and harsher than would be believed by the CCCB communications department. It remains to be seen the impact that the letter will have, as it will now be inevitably associated with the question on whether it is absolutely necessary or not to obtain the support of the local bishop when D&P finances a project with a partner in the Global South.
Those who believe this measure is necessary will find in this letter the proof that it is vital to have this agreement. The acerbic tone of the letter leaves no doubt about the opinion of the archbishopric of Mexico City about the PRODH Centre.
But those who consider that this obligation risks harming development projects will also find a further argument in this letter. After all, apart from the vicious condemnation of the Prodh Centre, the letter does not explain the reasons for this position. Can the future of a development project depend on one or two thin paragraphs? Besides, between the Jesuit superiors of Canada and Mexico, who support the ProDH centre and the diocese of Mexico, who should the reader believe?
Or rather: to whom should we give the benefit of the doubt?
The letter is dated 1 April 2011. It is signed by Monsignor Guillermo Moreno Bravo, vicar general and Curia moderator for the archdiocese of Mexico. The CCCB refers to this letter in two public communications issued recently on the subject of the Development and Peace issue.
Here is the English translation of the letter:
“Cardinal Norberto Carrera has asked me to respond to your request for clarification regarding the PRODH Centre. This institution does NOT represent the views of the Church and is known for its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values.
With regards to the subject of defense of life, the organization has supported pro-choice groups and has promoted the so-called woman’s right to control her own body, against unborn life.”
On 4 April, the CCCB stated in a news release entitled “Commentary on the Cancellation of a Share Lent Speaker” that the “Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB),the Archdiocese of Ottawa and Development and Peace asked for clarifications from the archdiocese of Mexico regarding Father Arriaga and the PRODH Centre.” This is the response they received.
In a 4 May documented entitled “Commentary of the Canadian Catholic Bishops’ Conference regarding an interview on PROXIMO with Claude Lacaille, PME, the CCCB President, Bishop Pierre Morissette, referred to this letter in the following terms:
“After serious reflection, the Archbishop of Ottawa and the Executive Director of Development and Peace took the joint decision to cancel the speaking engagements organized [for Father Arriaga, the then director of the PRODH Centre] in order to avoid that a controversy distract attention from the Share Lent program. Mexican church authorities subsequently confirmed that they harboured serious concerns on the subject of the ProDH Centre. This information was brought to the attention of the General Secretary of the CCCB, who was required to communicate it to all the bishops, notably to the Archbishop of Ottawa, as well as to Development and Peace.”
According to this extract, the letter arrived after the decision to cancel the speaking engagements had already been taken. The letter is dated 1 April, on the same day that the diocese of Ottawa announced the cancellation of the speaking engagements of Father Arriaga. The CCCB’s communications department would not confirm on what date the letter from the archdiocese of Mexico was received.
On 25 May, the Jesuit provincials of the provinces of French Canada, English Canada and Mexico did nonetheless confirm their “support for the integrity of the work of the Miguel Pro Human Rights Centre and that of its director, Fr Luis Arriaga, an engagement that bears witness to the social teaching of the Catholic Church.”
The letter is very brief, and harsher than would be believed by the CCCB communications department. It remains to be seen the impact that the letter will have, as it will now be inevitably associated with the question on whether it is absolutely necessary or not to obtain the support of the local bishop when D&P finances a project with a partner in the Global South.
Those who believe this measure is necessary will find in this letter the proof that it is vital to have this agreement. The acerbic tone of the letter leaves no doubt about the opinion of the archbishopric of Mexico City about the PRODH Centre.
But those who consider that this obligation risks harming development projects will also find a further argument in this letter. After all, apart from the vicious condemnation of the Prodh Centre, the letter does not explain the reasons for this position. Can the future of a development project depend on one or two thin paragraphs? Besides, between the Jesuit superiors of Canada and Mexico, who support the ProDH centre and the diocese of Mexico, who should the reader believe?
Or rather: to whom should we give the benefit of the doubt?
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Mexican Cardinal's Letter Led to D&P Funding Cut
Written by Michael Swan, The Catholic Register
3 June 2011
The Canadian funding of a Mexican human rights organization was cut following a letter from the archbishop of Mexico City that directly accuses the Jesuit-founded body of supporting pro-abortion groups.
The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) cut the funding for Centro PRODH, whose director recently had speaking engagements cancelled in Ottawa and Cornwall, after Mexican Cardinal Norberto Carrera said the organization "does NOT represent the sentiments of the Church and has been characterized by its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values."
"With respect to the theme of defence of life, the organization has supported pro-abortion groups and promoted the purported woman's right over her body, against unborn life," said a translation of the letter obtained by The Catholic Register.
Carrera's letter was sent to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, which two years ago cleared Centro PRODH of similar accusations.Centro PRODH spokeswoman Francesca Allodi-Ross denies the charge, telling The Catholic Register "we have never worked on that issue."
In light of the letter, D&P had no choice but to end its 10-year funding relationship with Centro PRODH, said executive director Michael Casey.
"We couldn't take a position against the highest ranking authority of the Church in Mexico on this," he said.
The funding cut does not sit well with Jesuit provincial superiors in English and French Canada, who along with the Jesuit provincial in Mexico have issued an open letter defending Centro PRODH and its outgoing director, Jesuit Father Luis Arriaga.
"Fr. Luis Arriaga and his team deserve our support," said the May 25 letter signed by Fr. Jim Webb for English Canada, Fr. Jean-Marc Biron for French Canada and Fr. Carlos Morfin Otero for Mexico.
The three Jesuit provincials called Arriaga an excellent religious working in accordance with the mission entrusted to him by his superiors. In the context of Mexican violence, Centro PRODH's work is "a constant commitment to the right to life of each and all," they said.
The letter puts the provincials at odds with fellow Jesuit Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa and the CCCB. Prendergast barred Arriaga from speaking in the archdiocese in March amid allegations of the organization's pro-abortion stance.
Before the provincials' letter was issued, Francophone D&P delegates, representing about half of the agency's 12,000 members, voted at regional meetings to restore funding to Centro PRODH. The Quebec and New Brunswick regional assembly also "deplored" the creation of a bishops' committee looking into the future of the organization because it has no representatives from Development and Peace membership.
A recently surfaced photograph of Arriaga standing beside the founder of the Mexican organization Catholics for the Right to Decide sparked the current controversy. But Centro PRODH representatives say there is no relationship between the two.
Arriaga stepped down as executive director of Centro PRODH at the end of May, passing leadership on to Jesuit Father José Rosario Marroquin Farrera. The transition was in the works before Arriaga's March visit to Canada.
"(Arriaga's departure) has nothing to do with any abortion controversy. Luis was appointed to a fixed term as director," said Centro PRODH spokesperson Stephanie Brewer. "Centro PRODH does no work related to abortion. We have never participated in any campaign related to abortion."
Centro PRODH contributed several paragraphs regarding civil rights and dysfunction in Mexico's court system to an omnibus report for the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Mexico in 2008. Catholics for the Right to Decide also contributed paragraphs about legal access to abortion. Rather than receiving dozens of reports, the UN Human Rights Council requires NGOs to contribute to a single report.
Centro PRODH is also a member of the Red Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos (All Rights for Everyone), a network of Mexican NGOs with an interest in human rights. Statements it made don't represent the views of its individual members, nor are the members always consulted about the network's statements, said Brewer.
"I understand that some statement was signed by the Red TDT making reference to access to abortion several years ago, but we have no record of having participated," she said.
The controversy over Development and Peace and Centro PRODH has become a cause for many in Quebec, said l'Entraide Missionnaire executive director Suzanne Loiselle. The ecumenical coalition of Quebec aid organizations has sent letters to the CCCB and D&P questioning the decision to defund Centro PRODH.
"We know Centro PRODH. We know the important work this group does. We are very concerned," said Loiselle.
Catholic bishops are listening to fundamentalist campaigners in English Canada rather than members of D&P, she said. In 1967 Canada's bishops envisioned the organization as a lay-led, democratic movement. The current controversy has led to a "rupture," she said.
Centro PRODH said the funding decision will have minimal impact on its finances.
3 June 2011
The Canadian funding of a Mexican human rights organization was cut following a letter from the archbishop of Mexico City that directly accuses the Jesuit-founded body of supporting pro-abortion groups.
The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) cut the funding for Centro PRODH, whose director recently had speaking engagements cancelled in Ottawa and Cornwall, after Mexican Cardinal Norberto Carrera said the organization "does NOT represent the sentiments of the Church and has been characterized by its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values."
"With respect to the theme of defence of life, the organization has supported pro-abortion groups and promoted the purported woman's right over her body, against unborn life," said a translation of the letter obtained by The Catholic Register.
Carrera's letter was sent to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, which two years ago cleared Centro PRODH of similar accusations.Centro PRODH spokeswoman Francesca Allodi-Ross denies the charge, telling The Catholic Register "we have never worked on that issue."
In light of the letter, D&P had no choice but to end its 10-year funding relationship with Centro PRODH, said executive director Michael Casey.
"We couldn't take a position against the highest ranking authority of the Church in Mexico on this," he said.
The funding cut does not sit well with Jesuit provincial superiors in English and French Canada, who along with the Jesuit provincial in Mexico have issued an open letter defending Centro PRODH and its outgoing director, Jesuit Father Luis Arriaga.
"Fr. Luis Arriaga and his team deserve our support," said the May 25 letter signed by Fr. Jim Webb for English Canada, Fr. Jean-Marc Biron for French Canada and Fr. Carlos Morfin Otero for Mexico.
The three Jesuit provincials called Arriaga an excellent religious working in accordance with the mission entrusted to him by his superiors. In the context of Mexican violence, Centro PRODH's work is "a constant commitment to the right to life of each and all," they said.
The letter puts the provincials at odds with fellow Jesuit Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa and the CCCB. Prendergast barred Arriaga from speaking in the archdiocese in March amid allegations of the organization's pro-abortion stance.
Before the provincials' letter was issued, Francophone D&P delegates, representing about half of the agency's 12,000 members, voted at regional meetings to restore funding to Centro PRODH. The Quebec and New Brunswick regional assembly also "deplored" the creation of a bishops' committee looking into the future of the organization because it has no representatives from Development and Peace membership.
A recently surfaced photograph of Arriaga standing beside the founder of the Mexican organization Catholics for the Right to Decide sparked the current controversy. But Centro PRODH representatives say there is no relationship between the two.
Arriaga stepped down as executive director of Centro PRODH at the end of May, passing leadership on to Jesuit Father José Rosario Marroquin Farrera. The transition was in the works before Arriaga's March visit to Canada.
"(Arriaga's departure) has nothing to do with any abortion controversy. Luis was appointed to a fixed term as director," said Centro PRODH spokesperson Stephanie Brewer. "Centro PRODH does no work related to abortion. We have never participated in any campaign related to abortion."
Centro PRODH contributed several paragraphs regarding civil rights and dysfunction in Mexico's court system to an omnibus report for the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Mexico in 2008. Catholics for the Right to Decide also contributed paragraphs about legal access to abortion. Rather than receiving dozens of reports, the UN Human Rights Council requires NGOs to contribute to a single report.
Centro PRODH is also a member of the Red Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos (All Rights for Everyone), a network of Mexican NGOs with an interest in human rights. Statements it made don't represent the views of its individual members, nor are the members always consulted about the network's statements, said Brewer.
"I understand that some statement was signed by the Red TDT making reference to access to abortion several years ago, but we have no record of having participated," she said.
The controversy over Development and Peace and Centro PRODH has become a cause for many in Quebec, said l'Entraide Missionnaire executive director Suzanne Loiselle. The ecumenical coalition of Quebec aid organizations has sent letters to the CCCB and D&P questioning the decision to defund Centro PRODH.
"We know Centro PRODH. We know the important work this group does. We are very concerned," said Loiselle.
Catholic bishops are listening to fundamentalist campaigners in English Canada rather than members of D&P, she said. In 1967 Canada's bishops envisioned the organization as a lay-led, democratic movement. The current controversy has led to a "rupture," she said.
Centro PRODH said the funding decision will have minimal impact on its finances.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Le Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain-CSN se porte à la défense de Développement et Paix
Réunis en assemblée générale ce soir, les syndicats CSN affiliés au Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain (CCMM-CSN) ont adopté unanimement une résolution d’appui à l’organisme Développement et Paix.
L’organisme est secoué depuis plusieurs mois par diverses allégations non fondées et diffusées par des groupes d’extrême droite. Depuis deux ans, Développement et Paix est ciblé par des groupes anti-choix dont l’antenne principale est le site « Lifesitenews » à Toronto. Ces groupes allèguent que de nombreux partenaires de Développement et Paix dans les pays du Sud ont une approche pro-choix, donc distincte de l’enseignement de l’Église catholique sur le contrôle des naissances et la sexualité. Désormais, les partenaires de l’organisme dans 70 pays devront obtenir une approbation de l’évêque local pour être reconnus dignes de l’appui financier de Développement et Paix. Cette condition met donc en péril l’aide qui leur est apportée depuis plusieurs années.
La résolution adoptée par les syndicats a été présentée par des membres de l’organisme qui en compte 13 000 au Canada. Ceux-ci ont formé un comité de soutien afin de rallier le plus grand nombre de personnes derrière la défense de la mission actuelle de Développement et Paix qui, depuis sa fondation, intervient pour soutenir le développement partout dans le monde, sans égard aux croyances religieuses des populations soutenues.
L’organisme est secoué depuis plusieurs mois par diverses allégations non fondées et diffusées par des groupes d’extrême droite. Depuis deux ans, Développement et Paix est ciblé par des groupes anti-choix dont l’antenne principale est le site « Lifesitenews » à Toronto. Ces groupes allèguent que de nombreux partenaires de Développement et Paix dans les pays du Sud ont une approche pro-choix, donc distincte de l’enseignement de l’Église catholique sur le contrôle des naissances et la sexualité. Désormais, les partenaires de l’organisme dans 70 pays devront obtenir une approbation de l’évêque local pour être reconnus dignes de l’appui financier de Développement et Paix. Cette condition met donc en péril l’aide qui leur est apportée depuis plusieurs années.
Un comité de soutien« Pour nous, c’est clair qu’il y a un danger à attacher l’aide au développement à de telles conditions, explique la secrétaire générale du CCMM-CSN, Dominique Daigneault. Derrière les attaques que subit présentement Développement et Paix, on retrouve une extrême droite morale et économique qui gagne de plus en plus de terrain au Canada et au Québec. Nous avons le devoir de nous ériger devant ces mouvements qui mettent en péril les valeurs de solidarité et de justice sociale auxquelles nous croyons et qui sont au cœur du travail de Développement et Paix
La résolution adoptée par les syndicats a été présentée par des membres de l’organisme qui en compte 13 000 au Canada. Ceux-ci ont formé un comité de soutien afin de rallier le plus grand nombre de personnes derrière la défense de la mission actuelle de Développement et Paix qui, depuis sa fondation, intervient pour soutenir le développement partout dans le monde, sans égard aux croyances religieuses des populations soutenues.
Le comité de soutien a son blogue depuis peu, accessible au http://soutenonsdetp.wordpress.com/. De plus, le groupe a lancé une pétition en ligne adressée aux dirigeants de Développement et Paix afin qu’ils sachent qu’ils bénéficient d’un large appui devant les pressions qu’exercent certains groupes. Elle peut être signée à l’adresse suivante : http://goo.gl/HzCgq. Le CCMM-CSN invite les membres de ses syndicats affiliés à visiter ce site pour s’informer davantage ainsi qu’à signer la pétition en appui à l’organisme. Les représentants du conseil central souhaitent sensibiliser leurs alliés à l’importance d’appuyer Développement et Paix dans cette tourmente.
Affilié à la CSN, le Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain-CSN regroupe plus de 94 000 membres des secteurs public et privé, répartis au sein de 400 syndicats sur les territoires de Montréal, de Laval et du Grand Nord.
Letter to National Council from Eastern Ontario Youth Representative
For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
1 Peter 2:19-21
To: D&P National Council members
It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter.
Two years ago, I came to Development and Peace as a young woman profoundly struggling with my Catholic identity. I felt stuck in a Church embedded in structures of sin, perpetuating oppression within its own walls and in society at large. Seeking a community that could restore my faith in the Church and its mission to be bearers of Jesus' call to love and serve one another, it meant a great deal to me to find that community in Development and Peace.
These past two years as part of this movement have been very transformative for me. As part of the youth movement, I have encountered young people with a passion for justice rooted in profound love for our brothers and sisters all over the world. I have been able to meet some of our partners in the Philippines, engaged in important and inspiring work that has united communities and had a meaningful impact on the lives of the poor. I have worked with a committed Diocesan Council, seeking to reinvigorate Ottawa's D&P movement despite small numbers and overworked volunteers. All of these experiences have allowed my understanding of solidarity – that is, to live in relationship with those on the margins and to be committed to sharing in a struggle for peace and justice despite inevitable obstacles and opposition – to grow and develop. Development and Peace has been my vision of Church, and has given me a reason to hold fast to my faith in a better future for the Catholic Church.
But these past couple of months have drastically changed what I thought this organization was about. When Fr. Luis' visit to my diocese was canceled by the Archbishop, I was shocked and angry. But I believed that Development and Peace, an organization I had come to trust, would stand by our partner and defend their important work despite opposition from members of the Church hierarchy. But that support never came. Instead, the funding for Centro PRODH was quietly cut, leaving myself and members with whom I have spoken hurt and confused. This approach to global relationship - whereby if a Bishop in the South expresses unjust and unfounded concerns over the work of one of our partners, we are obliged to cut ties with that partner – runs counter to everything I have learned from Development and Peace about solidarity in the midst of struggle. It totally delegitimizes what we claim is our approach to international work – that which sets us apart from so many other development agencies.
Development and Peace is a lay organization for a reason. Rooted in the Gospel message and a meaningful understanding of how to do “development”, being led by the lay Catholic movement means we can be spiritual activists in a secular world, recognizing that we are all (regardless of faith tradition, political views, economic status, region of the world, etc.) a part of the body of Christ. We know in our hearts that the Kingdom is now, and it is for all to share, and our partnerships reflect that. If we move towards a model whereby the Church hierarchy can control how we manifest our vision of a more just world, we are doing a great disservice to our partners and to ourselves. Our ability to live in enduring solidarity – our very identity as a movement – will be compromised.
I recognize that the poltical climate – both in the Church and in Canadian society – is undergoing drastic changes. NGOs that have for decades been at the forefront of progressive social movements are now being forced to reassess their priorities to suit the agenda of a Conservative government, lest they face devastating funding cuts. As more and more progressive Catholics find a home in other denominations, our church is also becoming increasingly conservative and fails to see the importance of the justice work that Development and Peace has been engaged in for close to half a century.
But we cannot let this climate silence our voices. The Church, now more than ever, needs Development and Peace to be a strong advocate for a justice-seeking church community that strives to live out that preferential option for the poor in all of its work. We need to stand up for life issues as we understand them: standing with the oppressed and the marginalized, having courage to continue fighting against incredible odds, much like Fr. Luis Arriaga, Centro PRODH, and all those wronged by the justice system in Mexico with whom they work.
We are living in fear of a backlash from the small but vocal Conservative contingent in the Church. But the bigger backlash we should be fearing is the one that will come from our most committed members if our approach to solidarity undergoes the fundamental shift towards which it is currently headed. We have already seen that outrage manifest at some of the regional meetings this year, and it will only get worse as this elephant in the room gets bigger and more difficult to avoid.
I thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter, and I hope that the concerns brought up herein, and in the many letters and recommendations that have been flooding in from all over the country, will be promptly addressed. We can turn this ship around, but we need to be strong in community with each other.
In peace,
Kaitlyn Duthie-Kannikkatt
Eastern Ontario Youth Representative
1 Peter 2:19-21
To: D&P National Council members
It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter.
Two years ago, I came to Development and Peace as a young woman profoundly struggling with my Catholic identity. I felt stuck in a Church embedded in structures of sin, perpetuating oppression within its own walls and in society at large. Seeking a community that could restore my faith in the Church and its mission to be bearers of Jesus' call to love and serve one another, it meant a great deal to me to find that community in Development and Peace.
These past two years as part of this movement have been very transformative for me. As part of the youth movement, I have encountered young people with a passion for justice rooted in profound love for our brothers and sisters all over the world. I have been able to meet some of our partners in the Philippines, engaged in important and inspiring work that has united communities and had a meaningful impact on the lives of the poor. I have worked with a committed Diocesan Council, seeking to reinvigorate Ottawa's D&P movement despite small numbers and overworked volunteers. All of these experiences have allowed my understanding of solidarity – that is, to live in relationship with those on the margins and to be committed to sharing in a struggle for peace and justice despite inevitable obstacles and opposition – to grow and develop. Development and Peace has been my vision of Church, and has given me a reason to hold fast to my faith in a better future for the Catholic Church.
But these past couple of months have drastically changed what I thought this organization was about. When Fr. Luis' visit to my diocese was canceled by the Archbishop, I was shocked and angry. But I believed that Development and Peace, an organization I had come to trust, would stand by our partner and defend their important work despite opposition from members of the Church hierarchy. But that support never came. Instead, the funding for Centro PRODH was quietly cut, leaving myself and members with whom I have spoken hurt and confused. This approach to global relationship - whereby if a Bishop in the South expresses unjust and unfounded concerns over the work of one of our partners, we are obliged to cut ties with that partner – runs counter to everything I have learned from Development and Peace about solidarity in the midst of struggle. It totally delegitimizes what we claim is our approach to international work – that which sets us apart from so many other development agencies.
Development and Peace is a lay organization for a reason. Rooted in the Gospel message and a meaningful understanding of how to do “development”, being led by the lay Catholic movement means we can be spiritual activists in a secular world, recognizing that we are all (regardless of faith tradition, political views, economic status, region of the world, etc.) a part of the body of Christ. We know in our hearts that the Kingdom is now, and it is for all to share, and our partnerships reflect that. If we move towards a model whereby the Church hierarchy can control how we manifest our vision of a more just world, we are doing a great disservice to our partners and to ourselves. Our ability to live in enduring solidarity – our very identity as a movement – will be compromised.
I recognize that the poltical climate – both in the Church and in Canadian society – is undergoing drastic changes. NGOs that have for decades been at the forefront of progressive social movements are now being forced to reassess their priorities to suit the agenda of a Conservative government, lest they face devastating funding cuts. As more and more progressive Catholics find a home in other denominations, our church is also becoming increasingly conservative and fails to see the importance of the justice work that Development and Peace has been engaged in for close to half a century.
But we cannot let this climate silence our voices. The Church, now more than ever, needs Development and Peace to be a strong advocate for a justice-seeking church community that strives to live out that preferential option for the poor in all of its work. We need to stand up for life issues as we understand them: standing with the oppressed and the marginalized, having courage to continue fighting against incredible odds, much like Fr. Luis Arriaga, Centro PRODH, and all those wronged by the justice system in Mexico with whom they work.
We are living in fear of a backlash from the small but vocal Conservative contingent in the Church. But the bigger backlash we should be fearing is the one that will come from our most committed members if our approach to solidarity undergoes the fundamental shift towards which it is currently headed. We have already seen that outrage manifest at some of the regional meetings this year, and it will only get worse as this elephant in the room gets bigger and more difficult to avoid.
I thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter, and I hope that the concerns brought up herein, and in the many letters and recommendations that have been flooding in from all over the country, will be promptly addressed. We can turn this ship around, but we need to be strong in community with each other.
In peace,
Kaitlyn Duthie-Kannikkatt
Eastern Ontario Youth Representative
Thursday, 2 June 2011
French arm of D&P demands restored funding to Mexican group
Written by Michael Swan, The Catholic Register Wednesday, 01 June 2011 10:11
New funding rules and the process of setting new directions for the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) are running into stiff opposition in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Members of D&P in Francophone Canada used their regional assembly meeting to demand restoration of funding to Centro PRODH, the Mexican human rights organization that has drawn heat for apparently endorsing a campaign for legal access to first trimester abortions throughout Mexico.
D&P had ended its funding relationship with Centro PRODH based on doubts expressed by Mexico’s conference of Catholic bishops. In April Archbishop Terrence Prendergast and D&P cancelled an Ottawa speaking engagement with Centro PRODH executive director Fr. Luis Arriaga. Arriaga was photographed accepting an award from an organization that promotes legal access to abortion.
The D&P members in Quebec and New Brunswick objected to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops standing committee on the future direction of the organization, saying it was up to members to determine D&P’s future.
Quebec’s ecumenical coalition of church-based aid and development groups, L’Entraide Missionaire, has written to the bishops and to D&P executive director Michael Casey calling for restoration of funding to Centro PRODH.
The bishops are listening to fundamentalist campaigners in English Canada rather than members of their own organization, L’Entraide’s executive director Suzanne Loiselle told The Catholic Register.
In 1967 Canada’s bishops envisioned a lay-led, democratic structure for D&P, said Loiselle. The current controversy has led to a “rupture,” she said.
“We know Centro PRODH. We know the important work this group does. We are very concerned,” said Loiselle.
Demands that D&P seek endorsements from local bishops for every one of its 200-plus partners in 30 countries could hobble the organization and undermine the principle of solidarity with partners based on the work they do rather than their Church connections, Loiselle said. Abortion is being used as a stick to beat D&P by people who don’t believe in solidarity, she said.
“The main thing is to fight for life, the life of everybody in the world, for the rights of everybody in the world,” she said. “It’s not really about abortion. It’s a way to discredit (Development and Peace).”
Meanwhile Jesuit Father Luis Arriaga finished his five-year term as executive director of Centro PRODH May 27. He has been replaced by another Mexican Jesuit, Fr. José Rosario Marroquin Farrera.
In his final address as executive director, Arriaga defended the work of his organization, saying its greatest achievements have been legal battles to defend the rights of poor, indigenous women.
A few days before leaving office, Arriaga was endorsed by the Jesuit provincial superiors of English Canada, French Canada and Mexico.
“People engaged in this field, as Fr. Arriaga and his team are, merit our support,” said the French-language statement signed by Fr. Jim Webb, Fr. Carlos Morfin Otero and Fr. Jean-Marc Biron.
The Jesuit statement calls Arriaga “a religious of excellent reputation in good standing with the Church who carries out the missions given to him by his Jesuit superiors.”
Spokespersons for D&P were unavailable for comment at press time.
Crisis at Development and Peace (translation of Le Devoir 30 May article)
Crisis at Development and Peace – Bishops impose a tutelage on the lay international aid organization
Le Devoir, 30 May 2011
The Jesuits of Canada and of Mexico have rallied to the defence of a human rights organization in Mexico City, whose funding has been cut by Development and Peace, official organization of the Catholic church. The provincial superiors have also declared their solidarity with Jesuit priest Luis Arriaga, founder of the human rights organization, banned from the Ottawa archdiocese by Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, last April, during Share Lent.
In a statement released on May 25, the Superiors of French Canada, Jean Marc Biron, and of English Canada, Jim Webb, and of Mexico, Carlos Morfin Otero, support the “integrity of the work” of the Pro Human Rights Centre of Mexico, and of its director, “a commitment that bears witness to the social teachings of the Catholic church.” In so doing, they distance themselves from groups that accuse the centre of promotion of abortion in Mexico.
The Pro DH centre represents before the courts victims of abuse of power, repression and injustice. Development and Peace recognizes that this work is absolutely unrelated to issues of abortion or even contraception. But the Mexican bishops had raised questions on this issue. And it is upon consideration of these concerns “within the Mexican Church” that the Archbishop of Ottawa and then Development and Peace claim they terminated a partnership dating back to 1995.
The Jesuit Superiors point out that a bishops’ commission of inquiry concluded in 2009 that the Centre had not participated in the promotion of abortion. But since then, one of the signatories of the report, Martin Currie, Archbishop of St John’s (Newfoundland), was quoted by Life Site News saying that Development and Peace participated in the writing of the report. The other signatory of the report, Francois Lapierre, Bishop of St Hyacinthe, categorically denies any such participation.
Given the generalized violence in Mexico, the work of Father Arriaga, and members of PRODH, represents, “a constant engagement for the right to life” of everyone in the country, the Jesuit superiors believe. “The lives of these same human rights defenders are very often threatened,” they say, “and it is international solidarity that we extend to them that allows them to continue this critical engagement.”
“More broadly speaking, Christian witness in the promotion of justice and human rights which is carried out on the frontlines, in difficult contexts where supporters of the status quo do everything to block the advancement of fundamental gospel values. In such circumstances, the people who are out there, active in the field, as are Fr Luis Arriaga and his team, deserve our support.”
Reactions
Nonetheless, the crisis at Development and Peace is not simply about a misunderstanding between religious or even due to different points of view about abortion. By recently giving the Mexican bishops and others a right of veto over Development and Peace partners and thus on the solidarity networks with whom they act, the Canadian Bishops’ Conference has placed under tutelage one of the few lay organizations of the Catholic Church.
Members of D&P have strongly reacted against these decisions, taken without their participation. Many are expressing their anger at the organization’s management, for having bowed to these pressures and for attempting since then to keep the debate “internal”. Members from Quebec and New Brunswick, meeting at a regional assembly, have called on the organization to reverse the de-funding of PRODH. They have also deplored the fact that the Bishops’ Conference has created a standing committee on the orientation of D&P without the participation of representatives of the organization.
For D&P the issue is fundamental. This denominational organization of international solidarity has about 12000 members in Canada. Dozens of thousands of donors allow it to support around 200 partner groups in around 30 countries. Some of these projects were put in place by the Catholic church and enjoy its support. But others could never form, nor survive if their work depended on a decision by the local bishop.
Condemnations
In countries where the church represents a minority, D&P also supports groups that are not Christian faith based. Such is the case in Indonesia. And in countries where conflicts pit different faith communities against each other, D&P could contribute to neither development nor peace without collaborating with other faith groups or with the ethnic groups who do not belong to the local church. To go back on this way of working could even, it is said, put into jeopardy part of its partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency.
Also, some associations have decided not to keep quiet. Entraide Missionaire condemns the attacks of “ideologically conservative” groups and the “complicity of some bishops, especially Anglophone ones.” The Culture and Faith Network, in a letter to the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Pierre Morissette, of Saint Jerome, says it is outraged not only by the action by Bishop Prendergast, but especially by the “total silence” of the Conference on the behaviour of the former, judged “irresponsible.”
Not all the bishops are of the same current. Commenting the first pro-life attacks against D&P in 2009, the Archbishop of Winnipeg, James Weisgerber, an ex-president of the Conference, then cited the example of the Vatican, that contributes each year to UNICEF, the UN agency for children, despite disagreeing with the agency on abortion and contraception.
But other points of view from the Vatican are more worrying for catholic organizations working to help oppressed populations. And also for the responsibility of lay people in the Catholic Church.
Monday, 30 May 2011
Crise à Développement et Paix - Tutelle des évêques sur l'organisme laïque d'aide internationale
Les jésuites du Canada et du Mexique se portent à la défense d'un centre de protection des droits humains à Mexico auquel Développement et Paix (D&P), l'organisme officiel de l'Église canadienne, a coupé les fonds. Leurs supérieurs provinciaux se déclarent aussi solidaires du jésuite Luis Arriaga, fondateur du centre, que l'archevêque d'Ottawa, Mgr Terrence Prendergast, avait interdit dans son diocèse, en avril dernier, lors de la campagne «Carême de partage».
Dans un communiqué diffusé le 25 mai, les supérieurs du Canada français, Jean-Marc Biron, du Canada anglais, Jim Webb, et du Mexique, Carlos Morfin Otero, appuient «l'intégrité du travail» du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains de Mexico (PRODH) et de son directeur, «un engagement porteur de l'enseignement social de l'Église catholique». Ils prennent ainsi leurs distances de groupes qui accusent ce centre de contribuer à la «promotion de l'avortement au Mexique».
Le centre PRODH représente devant les tribunaux des victimes d'abus de pouvoir, de répression et d'injustice. D&P reconnaît que cette mission n'est en rien liée à l'avortement ou même à la contraception. Mais des évêques mexicains avaient soulevé des questions à ce sujet. Et c'est en considération de ces préoccupations au sein de «l'Église du Mexique» que l'archevêque d'Ottawa puis D&P prétendent avoir mis fin à un partenariat datant de 1995.
Les supérieurs jésuites rappellent qu'une commission d'enquête des évêques du Canada avait conclu, en 2009, que le centre en question n'avait pas participé à la promotion de l'avortement. Mais, depuis, l'un des signataires du rapport, Martin Currie, archevêque de St. John's (Terre-Neuve), a été cité par LifeSiteNews disant que D&P a participé à sa rédaction. L'autre signataire, François Lapierre, évêque de Saint-Hyacinthe, nie catégoriquement une telle collusion.
Vu la violence généralisée au Mexique, le travail du père Arriaga et des membres de PRODH représente, estiment les supérieurs jésuites, «un engagement constant pour le droit à la vie» de toutes les personnes du pays. «La vie de ces défenseurs des droits humains est elle-même souvent menacée, déclarent-ils, et c'est la solidarité internationale que nous leur témoignons qui leur permet de poursuivre leur engagement indispensable.»
«Plus largement, le témoignage chrétien pour la promotion de la justice et la promotion des droits de la personne qui lui est lié s'exerce aux frontières, dans des contextes difficiles où les partisans du statu quo mettent tout en oeuvre pour bloquer l'avancement des valeurs évangéliques fondamentales. Dans ces circonstances, les personnes qui s'engagent sur ce terrain, comme le font le P. Luis Arriaga et son équipe, méritent notre appui.»
Réactions
Toutefois, la crise à D&P ne tient pas simplement à un malentendu entre ecclésiastiques ou même à un différend sur l'avortement. En donnant récemment aux évêques du Mexique et d'ailleurs un droit de veto sur les partenaires de D&P et donc sur les réseaux de solidarité sociale avec lesquels ils agissent, la Conférence des évêques catholiques du Canada met en tutelle une des rares organisations laïques de l'Église catholique.
Des membres de D&P ont réagi fortement contre ces décisions, prises à leur insu. Plusieurs s'insurgent contre la haute direction de l'organisation, qui a cédé à ces pressions et tente, depuis, de confiner le débat à l'«interne». Des membres du Québec et du Nouveau-Brunswick, réunis en assemblée régionale, ont réclamé le rétablissement du financement de PRODH. On déplore aussi que la Conférence des évêques ait créé un comité permanent sur l'orientation de D&P sans représentants de cette organisation.
Pour D&P, l'enjeu est fondamental. Cette organisation confessionnelle de solidarité internationale compte quelque 12 000 membres au Canada. Des dizaines de milliers de donateurs lui permettent d'appuyer près de 200 groupes partenaires dans une trentaine de pays. Certains de ces projets ont été suscités par l'Église catholique et jouissent de son appui. Mais d'autres ne pourraient naître ou survivre si leur travail dépendait d'une décision de l'évêque local.
Dénonciations
Là où l'Église est minoritaire, D&P appuie aussi des groupes qui ne sont pas de foi chrétienne. C'est le cas en Indonésie. Et dans les pays où des conflits mettent en cause des communautés de croyances différentes, D&P ne pourrait contribuer ni au développement ni à la paix sans collaborer avec d'autres confessions ou avec des ethnies qui n'appartiennent pas à l'Église locale. Un recul à cet égard risque même, dit-on, de compromettre une part de son partenariat avec l'Agence canadienne de développement international.
Aussi, des associations ont-elles décidé de ne pas se taire. L'Entraide missionnaire dénonce les attaques de groupes «d'idéologie conservatrice» et la «complicité de quelques évêques, surtout anglophones». Le Réseau Culture et Foi, dans une lettre au président de la Conférence des évêques, Mgr Pierre Morissette, l'évêque de Saint-Jérôme, s'est dit scandalisé non seulement de l'intervention de Mgr Prendergast, mais surtout du «silence total» de la Conférence sur sa conduite, jugée «irresponsable».
Les évêques ne sont pas tous de cette tendance. Commentant les premières attaques pro-vie contre D&P en 2009, l'archevêque de Winnipeg, James Weisgerber, un ex-président de la Conférence, avait alors cité l'exemple du Vatican, qui contribue chaque année à l'UNICEF, l'agence de l'ONU pour les enfants, malgré son désaccord avec elle sur l'avortement et la contraception.
Mais d'autres vues du Vatican sont plus inquiétantes pour les organismes catholiques d'aide aux populations opprimées. Et aussi pour la responsabilité des laïcs dans l'Église catholique.
***
redaction@ledevoir.com
***
Jean-Claude Leclerc enseigne le journalisme à l'Université de Montréal.
Dans un communiqué diffusé le 25 mai, les supérieurs du Canada français, Jean-Marc Biron, du Canada anglais, Jim Webb, et du Mexique, Carlos Morfin Otero, appuient «l'intégrité du travail» du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains de Mexico (PRODH) et de son directeur, «un engagement porteur de l'enseignement social de l'Église catholique». Ils prennent ainsi leurs distances de groupes qui accusent ce centre de contribuer à la «promotion de l'avortement au Mexique».
Le centre PRODH représente devant les tribunaux des victimes d'abus de pouvoir, de répression et d'injustice. D&P reconnaît que cette mission n'est en rien liée à l'avortement ou même à la contraception. Mais des évêques mexicains avaient soulevé des questions à ce sujet. Et c'est en considération de ces préoccupations au sein de «l'Église du Mexique» que l'archevêque d'Ottawa puis D&P prétendent avoir mis fin à un partenariat datant de 1995.
Les supérieurs jésuites rappellent qu'une commission d'enquête des évêques du Canada avait conclu, en 2009, que le centre en question n'avait pas participé à la promotion de l'avortement. Mais, depuis, l'un des signataires du rapport, Martin Currie, archevêque de St. John's (Terre-Neuve), a été cité par LifeSiteNews disant que D&P a participé à sa rédaction. L'autre signataire, François Lapierre, évêque de Saint-Hyacinthe, nie catégoriquement une telle collusion.
Vu la violence généralisée au Mexique, le travail du père Arriaga et des membres de PRODH représente, estiment les supérieurs jésuites, «un engagement constant pour le droit à la vie» de toutes les personnes du pays. «La vie de ces défenseurs des droits humains est elle-même souvent menacée, déclarent-ils, et c'est la solidarité internationale que nous leur témoignons qui leur permet de poursuivre leur engagement indispensable.»
«Plus largement, le témoignage chrétien pour la promotion de la justice et la promotion des droits de la personne qui lui est lié s'exerce aux frontières, dans des contextes difficiles où les partisans du statu quo mettent tout en oeuvre pour bloquer l'avancement des valeurs évangéliques fondamentales. Dans ces circonstances, les personnes qui s'engagent sur ce terrain, comme le font le P. Luis Arriaga et son équipe, méritent notre appui.»
Réactions
Toutefois, la crise à D&P ne tient pas simplement à un malentendu entre ecclésiastiques ou même à un différend sur l'avortement. En donnant récemment aux évêques du Mexique et d'ailleurs un droit de veto sur les partenaires de D&P et donc sur les réseaux de solidarité sociale avec lesquels ils agissent, la Conférence des évêques catholiques du Canada met en tutelle une des rares organisations laïques de l'Église catholique.
Des membres de D&P ont réagi fortement contre ces décisions, prises à leur insu. Plusieurs s'insurgent contre la haute direction de l'organisation, qui a cédé à ces pressions et tente, depuis, de confiner le débat à l'«interne». Des membres du Québec et du Nouveau-Brunswick, réunis en assemblée régionale, ont réclamé le rétablissement du financement de PRODH. On déplore aussi que la Conférence des évêques ait créé un comité permanent sur l'orientation de D&P sans représentants de cette organisation.
Pour D&P, l'enjeu est fondamental. Cette organisation confessionnelle de solidarité internationale compte quelque 12 000 membres au Canada. Des dizaines de milliers de donateurs lui permettent d'appuyer près de 200 groupes partenaires dans une trentaine de pays. Certains de ces projets ont été suscités par l'Église catholique et jouissent de son appui. Mais d'autres ne pourraient naître ou survivre si leur travail dépendait d'une décision de l'évêque local.
Dénonciations
Là où l'Église est minoritaire, D&P appuie aussi des groupes qui ne sont pas de foi chrétienne. C'est le cas en Indonésie. Et dans les pays où des conflits mettent en cause des communautés de croyances différentes, D&P ne pourrait contribuer ni au développement ni à la paix sans collaborer avec d'autres confessions ou avec des ethnies qui n'appartiennent pas à l'Église locale. Un recul à cet égard risque même, dit-on, de compromettre une part de son partenariat avec l'Agence canadienne de développement international.
Aussi, des associations ont-elles décidé de ne pas se taire. L'Entraide missionnaire dénonce les attaques de groupes «d'idéologie conservatrice» et la «complicité de quelques évêques, surtout anglophones». Le Réseau Culture et Foi, dans une lettre au président de la Conférence des évêques, Mgr Pierre Morissette, l'évêque de Saint-Jérôme, s'est dit scandalisé non seulement de l'intervention de Mgr Prendergast, mais surtout du «silence total» de la Conférence sur sa conduite, jugée «irresponsable».
Les évêques ne sont pas tous de cette tendance. Commentant les premières attaques pro-vie contre D&P en 2009, l'archevêque de Winnipeg, James Weisgerber, un ex-président de la Conférence, avait alors cité l'exemple du Vatican, qui contribue chaque année à l'UNICEF, l'agence de l'ONU pour les enfants, malgré son désaccord avec elle sur l'avortement et la contraception.
Mais d'autres vues du Vatican sont plus inquiétantes pour les organismes catholiques d'aide aux populations opprimées. Et aussi pour la responsabilité des laïcs dans l'Église catholique.
***
redaction@ledevoir.com
***
Jean-Claude Leclerc enseigne le journalisme à l'Université de Montréal.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Friday, 27 May 2011
Les jésuites du Canada et du Mexiques’expriment sur le Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains (PRODH)
Le 25 mai 2011
Les jésuites du Canada et du Mexique
s’expriment sur le Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains (PRODH)
et sur son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga
COMMUNIQUÉ
Sensibles aux requêtes qui leur ont été faites par nombre de personnes et de groupes, les supérieurs provinciaux des jésuites du Canada français, du Canada anglais et du Mexique émettent ce communiqué pour appuyer l’intégrité du travail du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains de Mexico et de son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga, un engagement porteur de
l’enseignement social de l’Église catholique.
Le P. Luis Arriaga, directeur du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains (PRODH),de Mexico, avait été invité par les responsables de Développement et Paix, pour témoigner en avril dernier de l’engagement du centre qu’il dirige. Un ensemble de circonstances a rendu impossible sa contribution. Plus spécifiquement, des groupes de pression ont accusé le Centre PRODH d’avoir contribué à promouvoir l’avortement au Mexique.
Il y a deux ans pourtant, une commission spéciale de la CECC s’était rendue sur place au Mexique et avait conclu que, si la prudence dans la participation à des coalitions liées à la promotion des droits de la personne était de mise, d’aucune façon le Centre PRODH n’avait participé à la promotion de l’avortement; et aucune faute ne pouvait être attribuée à l’organisme de développement international Développement et Paix qui avait soutenu le centre Dans l’esprit de l’enseignement social de l’Église, et en appui au Centre PRODH et à son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga, pour soutenir aussi les chrétiens et chrétiennes engagés dans la promotion de la justice sociale et des droits de la personne, les supérieurs provinciaux du Mexique et du Canada tiennent à exprimer publiquement
ce qui suit :
· Comme l’avait affirmé le rapport de la commission spéciale de la CECC en
2009, le Centre Miguel Pro de Mexico n’a pas participé à la promotion de
l’avortement.
· Le P. Luis Arriaga, directeur du Centre PRODH, est un religieux d’excellente
réputation en règle avec l’Église et agissant en conformité avec les missions qui lui sont confiées par ses supérieurs jésuites. On note que son expertise est reconnue dans l’Église du Mexique puisqu’il agit comme conseiller d’une commission épiscopale sur les questions sociales.
· Dans le contexte de violence généralisée de la société mexicaine, le travail dupère Luis Arriaga, ainsi que de l’ensemble des membres du Centre PRODH,est un engagement constant pour le droit à la vie de tous et de toutes. La viede ces défenseurs des droits humains est elle-même souvent menacée et c’est la solidarité internationale que nous leur témoignons qui leur permet de poursuivre leur engagement indispensable.
· Plus largement, le témoignage chrétien pour la promotion de la justice et la promotion des droits de la personne qui lui est lié s’exercent aux frontières,dans des contextes difficiles où les partisans du statu quo mettent tout en oeuvre pour bloquer l’avancement des valeurs évangéliques fondamentales.
Dans ces circonstances, les personnes qui s’engagent sur ce terrain, comme
le font le P. Luis Arriaga et son équipe, méritent notre appui.
Montréal, Toronto et Mexico, le 25 mai 2011.
Jean-Marc Biron, S.J. Jim Webb, S.J. Carlos Morfín Otero, S.J.
Supérieur provincial Supérieur provincial Supérieur provincial
Province du Canada français Province du Canada anglais Province du Mexique
Les jésuites du Canada et du Mexique
s’expriment sur le Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains (PRODH)
et sur son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga
COMMUNIQUÉ
Sensibles aux requêtes qui leur ont été faites par nombre de personnes et de groupes, les supérieurs provinciaux des jésuites du Canada français, du Canada anglais et du Mexique émettent ce communiqué pour appuyer l’intégrité du travail du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains de Mexico et de son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga, un engagement porteur de
l’enseignement social de l’Église catholique.
Le P. Luis Arriaga, directeur du Centre Miguel Pro pour les droits humains (PRODH),de Mexico, avait été invité par les responsables de Développement et Paix, pour témoigner en avril dernier de l’engagement du centre qu’il dirige. Un ensemble de circonstances a rendu impossible sa contribution. Plus spécifiquement, des groupes de pression ont accusé le Centre PRODH d’avoir contribué à promouvoir l’avortement au Mexique.
Il y a deux ans pourtant, une commission spéciale de la CECC s’était rendue sur place au Mexique et avait conclu que, si la prudence dans la participation à des coalitions liées à la promotion des droits de la personne était de mise, d’aucune façon le Centre PRODH n’avait participé à la promotion de l’avortement; et aucune faute ne pouvait être attribuée à l’organisme de développement international Développement et Paix qui avait soutenu le centre Dans l’esprit de l’enseignement social de l’Église, et en appui au Centre PRODH et à son directeur, le P. Luis Arriaga, pour soutenir aussi les chrétiens et chrétiennes engagés dans la promotion de la justice sociale et des droits de la personne, les supérieurs provinciaux du Mexique et du Canada tiennent à exprimer publiquement
ce qui suit :
· Comme l’avait affirmé le rapport de la commission spéciale de la CECC en
2009, le Centre Miguel Pro de Mexico n’a pas participé à la promotion de
l’avortement.
· Le P. Luis Arriaga, directeur du Centre PRODH, est un religieux d’excellente
réputation en règle avec l’Église et agissant en conformité avec les missions qui lui sont confiées par ses supérieurs jésuites. On note que son expertise est reconnue dans l’Église du Mexique puisqu’il agit comme conseiller d’une commission épiscopale sur les questions sociales.
· Dans le contexte de violence généralisée de la société mexicaine, le travail dupère Luis Arriaga, ainsi que de l’ensemble des membres du Centre PRODH,est un engagement constant pour le droit à la vie de tous et de toutes. La viede ces défenseurs des droits humains est elle-même souvent menacée et c’est la solidarité internationale que nous leur témoignons qui leur permet de poursuivre leur engagement indispensable.
· Plus largement, le témoignage chrétien pour la promotion de la justice et la promotion des droits de la personne qui lui est lié s’exercent aux frontières,dans des contextes difficiles où les partisans du statu quo mettent tout en oeuvre pour bloquer l’avancement des valeurs évangéliques fondamentales.
Dans ces circonstances, les personnes qui s’engagent sur ce terrain, comme
le font le P. Luis Arriaga et son équipe, méritent notre appui.
Montréal, Toronto et Mexico, le 25 mai 2011.
Jean-Marc Biron, S.J. Jim Webb, S.J. Carlos Morfín Otero, S.J.
Supérieur provincial Supérieur provincial Supérieur provincial
Province du Canada français Province du Canada anglais Province du Mexique
Letter of CRC to CCCB Re Development and Peace
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monseigneur Pierre Morissette
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Dear Monseigneur Morissette,
The Canadian Religious Conference has learned about the very uncomfortable, and even unjust, situation facing Development and Peace, which is once again the target of attacks concerning its commitment to the vulnerable peoples of Latin America.
We are sorry to see your organisation for international solidarity being attacked by right-wing conservative ideologies that do not seem to understand the work accomplished by Development and Peace and its partners in Southern countries. And yet, a large number of religious communities, members of the CRC, engaged in these Southern countries, have nothing but praise for Development and Peace, with whom they have been in collaboration since its foundation.
Some of our communities are concerned about these attacks and would like to offer their support to the Catholic Church in Canada's organisation for international solidarity. They strongly hope that the CCCB will renew its unfailing support of Development and Peace.
We are aware that tensions exist among our national organisations. However, we must learn to deal courageously with the various tendencies and preserve the Church's prophetic voice: be the voice of the voiceless, the voice of these vulnerable populations who at times can only count on us to defend their rights and stand against the forces trying to drive them to their knees.
Development and Peace still has the confidence of the majority of Catholics in Canada, of the CRC and, we are certain, of the majority of Catholic Bishops in Canada. As such, please know that you have our support in confirming Development and Peace in its mission, and to let it be known loud and clear.
In solidarity,
Mary Finlayson, RSCJ
President
Monseigneur Pierre Morissette
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Dear Monseigneur Morissette,
The Canadian Religious Conference has learned about the very uncomfortable, and even unjust, situation facing Development and Peace, which is once again the target of attacks concerning its commitment to the vulnerable peoples of Latin America.
We are sorry to see your organisation for international solidarity being attacked by right-wing conservative ideologies that do not seem to understand the work accomplished by Development and Peace and its partners in Southern countries. And yet, a large number of religious communities, members of the CRC, engaged in these Southern countries, have nothing but praise for Development and Peace, with whom they have been in collaboration since its foundation.
Some of our communities are concerned about these attacks and would like to offer their support to the Catholic Church in Canada's organisation for international solidarity. They strongly hope that the CCCB will renew its unfailing support of Development and Peace.
We are aware that tensions exist among our national organisations. However, we must learn to deal courageously with the various tendencies and preserve the Church's prophetic voice: be the voice of the voiceless, the voice of these vulnerable populations who at times can only count on us to defend their rights and stand against the forces trying to drive them to their knees.
Development and Peace still has the confidence of the majority of Catholics in Canada, of the CRC and, we are certain, of the majority of Catholic Bishops in Canada. As such, please know that you have our support in confirming Development and Peace in its mission, and to let it be known loud and clear.
In solidarity,
Mary Finlayson, RSCJ
President
Votre décision d'interdire la visite du père Arriaga, sj
Gatineau, le vendredi 8 avril 2011
Monseigneur Prendergast
Objet: Votre décision d'interdire la visite du père Arriaga, sj
Pourquoi avons-nous si peur de la justice sociale, peur de nous laisser déranger par tout ce qui compromet et détruit la vie ? Quand nos évêques ont plus peur que nous, où allons-nous? Qui nous aidera à développer notre conscience de ce qui se passe ailleurs dans notre monde? De ce qui arrive à nos frères et soeurs dans le Christ?
Vous comprenez que votre décision d’interdire à la dernière minute les rencontres avec le père Luis Arriaga, s.j., directeur du Centre Prodh à Mexico, partenaire de Développement et Paix, sous la pression de groupes comme “lifesitenews.com” et “Real catholics” m’inquiète et me questionne. En visitant leurs sites, je me sens profondément indignée. Je m’imagine l’effet qu’aurait, dans le journal local, une photo de Jésus en compagnie de la Samaritaine aux cinq maris, de la femme accusée d’adultère ou de la femme pécheresse versant du parfum sur ses pieds. Les sordides déclarations de lifesitenews jouent ce jeu, et le sanhédrin, encore aujourd’hui, baisse les bras. Je ne comprends pas que l’on puisse, comme évêque, s’associer ainsi à des gens qui ont des propos si haineux, si peu nuancés et si contraire à l’Évangile.
Ce sont les cris des plus fragiles, des plus menacés, qu'il faut entendre en ce temps de Carême de partage. Pas les slogans de folie des pharisiens bien-pensant. Surtout que des confrères évêques ont confirmé la valeur de la mission que les Jésuites soutiennent au milieu des plus pauvres du Mexique. Vous avez choisi votre camp. Retirer sa confiance est un geste grave et plein de con-séquences qu’on ne peut faire pour les mauvaises raisons surtout si c’est pour la cause de la vie.
De quoi avez-vous peur? N’êtes vous pas inspiré de la passion pour la vie qui a toujours animé Jésus-Christ, lui qui a donné sa vie pour le salut du monde? Qu’est-ce qui nous fera tenir debout à lecture de la Passion du vendredi saint, si nous ne sommes pas à côté de ceux qui luttent pour la dignité de la vie humaine? Si nous sommes véritablement pro-vie, alors nous sommes engagés à accompagner la vie partout où elle est indignement traitée. Cette vie qu’on tient à mener à terme, il faut être là pour la protéger là où elle est menacée et non pas se laisser leurrer par une campagne de désinformation malveillante qui tente de déplacer les enjeux de notre lutte. Un père prodigue sait, à la face des bien-pensants, prendre la défense de ses enfants en péril. S’opposer férocement à l'avortement ne suffit pas: il faut être prêt à défendre cette vie jusqu’au bout.
Qui ira porter votre message de non-recevoir, une lettre porteuse de mort, au Centre pour la défense des droits humains - le PRODH - au Mexique? Qui ira leur dire que leur lutte pour la vie, finalement, a peu de prix à vos yeux? Ce ne sera pas nous car nous n’avons jamais pris cette décision avec vous et nous ne l’endossons pas. Si vous avez été à l’aise d’écrire cette lettre entre les murs de votre bureau, pouvez-vous l’être en la livrant vous-mêmes, en essayant de « passer au milieu d’eux en faisant le bien ». Avez-vous bien mesuré le prix de cet abandon ? Il fait penser à celui des pères qui abandonnent leurs rejetons dès qu'ils découvrent le poids de leurs obligations à long terme. Protéger la vie de ceux qui vont venir ne suffit pas. Il faut aussi être fidèle à ceux et celles qui sont déjà là.
J’ai honte de cette désaffectation ecclésiale. N’est-ce pas, en quelque sorte, l’avortement d’un projet de vie juste et digne ? Et où se situe vraiment l’avortement, seulement avant la naissance ? Tout parent prodigue sait bien que donner la vie, c’est une alliance pour la vie : c’est-à-dire tout au long de la vie, une fidélité, un engagement à être là quand elle sera injustement traînée dans la boue. Et où commence l’euthanasie ? Dès qu'on laisse les gens dans une telle indigence que le processus de mort est enclenché. Dès qu'on leur enlève la dignité et la possibilité de gagner leur vie. On a confiance de pouvoir donner la vie quand on sait qu’on pourra, avec l’aide de notre entourage, protéger cette vie. Jamais les menaces, les dénonciations ni les condamnations n’auront ce pouvoir.
Oh oui, je suis profondément indignée et je ne veux pas me résigner. Je suis membre de Développement et Paix; je cherche la vérité et pour moi, elle ne peut jamais être du côté de la haine, du mépris et de l’abandon.
Françoise Lagacé J’endosse entièrement
les propos de mon épouse
Gilles Lagacé
Monseigneur Prendergast
Objet: Votre décision d'interdire la visite du père Arriaga, sj
Pourquoi avons-nous si peur de la justice sociale, peur de nous laisser déranger par tout ce qui compromet et détruit la vie ? Quand nos évêques ont plus peur que nous, où allons-nous? Qui nous aidera à développer notre conscience de ce qui se passe ailleurs dans notre monde? De ce qui arrive à nos frères et soeurs dans le Christ?
Vous comprenez que votre décision d’interdire à la dernière minute les rencontres avec le père Luis Arriaga, s.j., directeur du Centre Prodh à Mexico, partenaire de Développement et Paix, sous la pression de groupes comme “lifesitenews.com” et “Real catholics” m’inquiète et me questionne. En visitant leurs sites, je me sens profondément indignée. Je m’imagine l’effet qu’aurait, dans le journal local, une photo de Jésus en compagnie de la Samaritaine aux cinq maris, de la femme accusée d’adultère ou de la femme pécheresse versant du parfum sur ses pieds. Les sordides déclarations de lifesitenews jouent ce jeu, et le sanhédrin, encore aujourd’hui, baisse les bras. Je ne comprends pas que l’on puisse, comme évêque, s’associer ainsi à des gens qui ont des propos si haineux, si peu nuancés et si contraire à l’Évangile.
Ce sont les cris des plus fragiles, des plus menacés, qu'il faut entendre en ce temps de Carême de partage. Pas les slogans de folie des pharisiens bien-pensant. Surtout que des confrères évêques ont confirmé la valeur de la mission que les Jésuites soutiennent au milieu des plus pauvres du Mexique. Vous avez choisi votre camp. Retirer sa confiance est un geste grave et plein de con-séquences qu’on ne peut faire pour les mauvaises raisons surtout si c’est pour la cause de la vie.
De quoi avez-vous peur? N’êtes vous pas inspiré de la passion pour la vie qui a toujours animé Jésus-Christ, lui qui a donné sa vie pour le salut du monde? Qu’est-ce qui nous fera tenir debout à lecture de la Passion du vendredi saint, si nous ne sommes pas à côté de ceux qui luttent pour la dignité de la vie humaine? Si nous sommes véritablement pro-vie, alors nous sommes engagés à accompagner la vie partout où elle est indignement traitée. Cette vie qu’on tient à mener à terme, il faut être là pour la protéger là où elle est menacée et non pas se laisser leurrer par une campagne de désinformation malveillante qui tente de déplacer les enjeux de notre lutte. Un père prodigue sait, à la face des bien-pensants, prendre la défense de ses enfants en péril. S’opposer férocement à l'avortement ne suffit pas: il faut être prêt à défendre cette vie jusqu’au bout.
Qui ira porter votre message de non-recevoir, une lettre porteuse de mort, au Centre pour la défense des droits humains - le PRODH - au Mexique? Qui ira leur dire que leur lutte pour la vie, finalement, a peu de prix à vos yeux? Ce ne sera pas nous car nous n’avons jamais pris cette décision avec vous et nous ne l’endossons pas. Si vous avez été à l’aise d’écrire cette lettre entre les murs de votre bureau, pouvez-vous l’être en la livrant vous-mêmes, en essayant de « passer au milieu d’eux en faisant le bien ». Avez-vous bien mesuré le prix de cet abandon ? Il fait penser à celui des pères qui abandonnent leurs rejetons dès qu'ils découvrent le poids de leurs obligations à long terme. Protéger la vie de ceux qui vont venir ne suffit pas. Il faut aussi être fidèle à ceux et celles qui sont déjà là.
J’ai honte de cette désaffectation ecclésiale. N’est-ce pas, en quelque sorte, l’avortement d’un projet de vie juste et digne ? Et où se situe vraiment l’avortement, seulement avant la naissance ? Tout parent prodigue sait bien que donner la vie, c’est une alliance pour la vie : c’est-à-dire tout au long de la vie, une fidélité, un engagement à être là quand elle sera injustement traînée dans la boue. Et où commence l’euthanasie ? Dès qu'on laisse les gens dans une telle indigence que le processus de mort est enclenché. Dès qu'on leur enlève la dignité et la possibilité de gagner leur vie. On a confiance de pouvoir donner la vie quand on sait qu’on pourra, avec l’aide de notre entourage, protéger cette vie. Jamais les menaces, les dénonciations ni les condamnations n’auront ce pouvoir.
Oh oui, je suis profondément indignée et je ne veux pas me résigner. Je suis membre de Développement et Paix; je cherche la vérité et pour moi, elle ne peut jamais être du côté de la haine, du mépris et de l’abandon.
Françoise Lagacé J’endosse entièrement
les propos de mon épouse
Gilles Lagacé
Le Forum André Naud et l'Interdiction de rencontrer le Père Arriaga
Mgr Prendergast
Vous avez décidé d'empêcher le Père Luis Arriaga, s,j. de venir discuter avec des laïcs et des prêtres de votre diocèse dans le cadre de la campagne de Carême de Développement et Paix. Cette décision nous interpelle au point où nous devons vous exprimer notre désaccord et partager nos inquiétudes avec vos confrères évêques et les personnes touchées par votre décision.
Nous sommes tous des membres du Forum André Naud, un regroupement de prêtres et de laïcs engagés en pastorale qui désirent maintenir un dialogue ouvert à l'intérieur de l'église, en prenant pour inspiration le travail d'André Naud théologien et ancien directeur du Grand Séminaire de Montréal. De plus, nous soutenons tous la mission de Développement et Paix.
Votre décision, qui semble avoir été provoquée par l'intervention d'un mouvement anti-avortement comme celui qui publie "Lifesitenews", nous interpelle pour quatre raisons principales.
1. Parce qu'elle va à l'encontre de l'esprit de dialogue et de la fraternité caractéristique de l'Église. Le père Arriaga devait rencontrer des prêtres, des baptisés adultes engagés dans leur communauté et capables de jugement. Notre rôle n'est pas limité à fournir de l'argent. Le père Arriaga a été invité aux frais des donateurs canadiens pour qu'on puisse dialoguer franchement avec lui sur ce qui se passe dans les milieux appauvris où il travaille. Nous avons suffisamment du jugement pour pouvoir le questionner sur les zones difficiles de ses œuvres et en discerner les risques et les bienfaits.
2. Parce qu'elle va à l'encontre de la collégialité épiscopale. Une commission d'évêques a déjà enquêté sur les allégations de groupes anti-avortements et conclu que le travail le PRODH au Mexique était conforme à la mission évangélique. Si de nouvelles allégations sont faites, il faut d'abord retourner à ce comité avant de condamner, surtout que les groupes en question sont connus pour avoir des positions calomnieuses, et cela à la face même des sites internet qu'ils publient.
3. Parce que notre expérience même de la mission nous a fait comprendre qu'on ne peut être missionnaire sans prendre le risque de nous retrouver dans des situations délicates. La plupart des membres de notre Forum ont de l'expérience missionnaire sur le terrain, ici où en pays en développement. Faire œuvre missionnaire c'est non seulement aller rencontrer chez eux des divorcés, des homosexuels, des femmes qui ont subi des avortements et des estropiés de la vie mais c'est aussi se retrouver dans la même marge de la société et de l'Église que d'autres gens qui s'y retrouvent et qui ont des pratiques que nous désapprouvons. On ne peut pas combattre les incendies si on refuse de se retrouver là où il y a des risques d'explosion. Interdire au Père Arriaga de nous parler c'est interdire à Jésus de venir dans nos paroisses parce qu'on l'a surpris à côtoyer une femme adultère, une Samaritaine ou une prostituée.
4, Parce que votre décision semble se détourner des enjeux de Développement et Paix pour servir une cause personnelle. Votre message du 1e avril conclut: "Mgr Prendergast veut faire en sorte que rien ne puisse diminuer la cause de la vie dans l'archidiocèse […] Cette année, Mgr Prendergast sera encore une fois à l'avant garde des activités pro-vie le 12 mai prochain". Ainsi, la préoccupation pour les appauvris du Sud fait place à la préoccupation d'un archidiocèse du Nord de protéger sa réputation plus blanche que blanche lors de ses activités pro-vie. Si telle est la préoccupation de nos leaders spirituels, vers qui allons-nous nous tourner, au cours de la Semaine Sainte, pour retrouver le sens de la mort du Christ?
Vous désirez sans doute que nous comprenions votre décision. Notre Forum veut justement garder ouvert le dialogue beaucoup trop chétif qui survit dans notre église contemporaine. Pour cela, il nous fallait d'abord, en toute sincérité, vous faire part de nos préoccupations les plus profondes.
Veuillez croire, monseigneur Prendergast, en notre engagement sincère à la mission du Christ mort et ressuscité.
Gérard Beaulieu,
Jean-Guy Gagnon,
Michel Lacroix,
Françoise Lagacé,
Gilles Lagacé,
Pauline Leduc,
René Mailloux
au nom du Forum André Naud de l'Outaouais
04/11/11
Vous avez décidé d'empêcher le Père Luis Arriaga, s,j. de venir discuter avec des laïcs et des prêtres de votre diocèse dans le cadre de la campagne de Carême de Développement et Paix. Cette décision nous interpelle au point où nous devons vous exprimer notre désaccord et partager nos inquiétudes avec vos confrères évêques et les personnes touchées par votre décision.
Nous sommes tous des membres du Forum André Naud, un regroupement de prêtres et de laïcs engagés en pastorale qui désirent maintenir un dialogue ouvert à l'intérieur de l'église, en prenant pour inspiration le travail d'André Naud théologien et ancien directeur du Grand Séminaire de Montréal. De plus, nous soutenons tous la mission de Développement et Paix.
Votre décision, qui semble avoir été provoquée par l'intervention d'un mouvement anti-avortement comme celui qui publie "Lifesitenews", nous interpelle pour quatre raisons principales.
1. Parce qu'elle va à l'encontre de l'esprit de dialogue et de la fraternité caractéristique de l'Église. Le père Arriaga devait rencontrer des prêtres, des baptisés adultes engagés dans leur communauté et capables de jugement. Notre rôle n'est pas limité à fournir de l'argent. Le père Arriaga a été invité aux frais des donateurs canadiens pour qu'on puisse dialoguer franchement avec lui sur ce qui se passe dans les milieux appauvris où il travaille. Nous avons suffisamment du jugement pour pouvoir le questionner sur les zones difficiles de ses œuvres et en discerner les risques et les bienfaits.
2. Parce qu'elle va à l'encontre de la collégialité épiscopale. Une commission d'évêques a déjà enquêté sur les allégations de groupes anti-avortements et conclu que le travail le PRODH au Mexique était conforme à la mission évangélique. Si de nouvelles allégations sont faites, il faut d'abord retourner à ce comité avant de condamner, surtout que les groupes en question sont connus pour avoir des positions calomnieuses, et cela à la face même des sites internet qu'ils publient.
3. Parce que notre expérience même de la mission nous a fait comprendre qu'on ne peut être missionnaire sans prendre le risque de nous retrouver dans des situations délicates. La plupart des membres de notre Forum ont de l'expérience missionnaire sur le terrain, ici où en pays en développement. Faire œuvre missionnaire c'est non seulement aller rencontrer chez eux des divorcés, des homosexuels, des femmes qui ont subi des avortements et des estropiés de la vie mais c'est aussi se retrouver dans la même marge de la société et de l'Église que d'autres gens qui s'y retrouvent et qui ont des pratiques que nous désapprouvons. On ne peut pas combattre les incendies si on refuse de se retrouver là où il y a des risques d'explosion. Interdire au Père Arriaga de nous parler c'est interdire à Jésus de venir dans nos paroisses parce qu'on l'a surpris à côtoyer une femme adultère, une Samaritaine ou une prostituée.
4, Parce que votre décision semble se détourner des enjeux de Développement et Paix pour servir une cause personnelle. Votre message du 1e avril conclut: "Mgr Prendergast veut faire en sorte que rien ne puisse diminuer la cause de la vie dans l'archidiocèse […] Cette année, Mgr Prendergast sera encore une fois à l'avant garde des activités pro-vie le 12 mai prochain". Ainsi, la préoccupation pour les appauvris du Sud fait place à la préoccupation d'un archidiocèse du Nord de protéger sa réputation plus blanche que blanche lors de ses activités pro-vie. Si telle est la préoccupation de nos leaders spirituels, vers qui allons-nous nous tourner, au cours de la Semaine Sainte, pour retrouver le sens de la mort du Christ?
Vous désirez sans doute que nous comprenions votre décision. Notre Forum veut justement garder ouvert le dialogue beaucoup trop chétif qui survit dans notre église contemporaine. Pour cela, il nous fallait d'abord, en toute sincérité, vous faire part de nos préoccupations les plus profondes.
Veuillez croire, monseigneur Prendergast, en notre engagement sincère à la mission du Christ mort et ressuscité.
Gérard Beaulieu,
Jean-Guy Gagnon,
Michel Lacroix,
Françoise Lagacé,
Gilles Lagacé,
Pauline Leduc,
René Mailloux
au nom du Forum André Naud de l'Outaouais
04/11/11
Contestation au sein de Développement et Paix
Contestation au sein de Développement et Paix
Gwenaëlle Reyt 20 mai 2011 Actualités en société
Des membres de l'organisme créé par l'épiscopat canadien pour financer des projets dans le tiers-monde craignent pour les peuples du Sud.
Dans une lettre publiée aujourd'hui en page Idées, quatre membres actifs de Développement et Paix (DP) s'inquiètent de l'influence grandissante sur leur organisme de groupes qu'ils qualifient de catholiques «extrêmes». Ces membres dénoncent la décision de DP d'obliger chaque partenaire du Sud à obtenir une lettre de soutien d'un évêque local pour recevoir de l'aide financière. «Nous voulons informer le public de la situation et des conséquences qu'elle peut avoir sur les gens du Sud, assure Normand Breault, cosignataire du texte. Tout le dossier de la santé reproductive des femmes est litigieux par rapport à un certain épiscopat. Avec la pression de la droite sur les évêques qui ont déjà tendance à absolutiser la vie avant la vie, ça pose problème quand on parle d'épanouissement des femmes.»
Hormis ce dossier, l'homme qui est actif depuis plus de 30 ans à DP note également que le catholicisme n'est pas présent partout et que l'accès à un évêque n'est pas toujours possible. Il rappelle aussi que, malgré un financement issu en grande partie des fidèles, l'organisme n'est pas une entreprise missionnaire et que certains tendent à l'oublier.
Chez DP, rien ne semble pourtant définitif. «Nous sommes en discussion avec le comité permanent qui a été mis sur pied par la conférence des évêques, explique la directrice générale adjointe, Josianne Gauthier, qui précise que cette instance a été nouvellement fondée. Nous allons discuter de ces enjeux qui pourraient avoir un impact sur l'avenir de notre travail dans le Sud.» Selon elle, la requête d'obtenir le soutien d'un évêque vient de la conférence des évêques, qui souhaite un rapprochement avec l'Église dans les pays du Sud. «L'enjeu est d'un côté que le financement provenant de catholiques ne soit pas utilisé à des fins qui heurtent leurs valeurs. De l'autre côté, il y a une préoccupation sur le trop grand contrôle de ce qui pourrait être de l'aide au développement. Le débat doit se tenir.» Le comité devrait se réunir pour la première fois au mois de juin.
Gwenaëlle Reyt 20 mai 2011 Actualités en société
Des membres de l'organisme créé par l'épiscopat canadien pour financer des projets dans le tiers-monde craignent pour les peuples du Sud.
Dans une lettre publiée aujourd'hui en page Idées, quatre membres actifs de Développement et Paix (DP) s'inquiètent de l'influence grandissante sur leur organisme de groupes qu'ils qualifient de catholiques «extrêmes». Ces membres dénoncent la décision de DP d'obliger chaque partenaire du Sud à obtenir une lettre de soutien d'un évêque local pour recevoir de l'aide financière. «Nous voulons informer le public de la situation et des conséquences qu'elle peut avoir sur les gens du Sud, assure Normand Breault, cosignataire du texte. Tout le dossier de la santé reproductive des femmes est litigieux par rapport à un certain épiscopat. Avec la pression de la droite sur les évêques qui ont déjà tendance à absolutiser la vie avant la vie, ça pose problème quand on parle d'épanouissement des femmes.»
Hormis ce dossier, l'homme qui est actif depuis plus de 30 ans à DP note également que le catholicisme n'est pas présent partout et que l'accès à un évêque n'est pas toujours possible. Il rappelle aussi que, malgré un financement issu en grande partie des fidèles, l'organisme n'est pas une entreprise missionnaire et que certains tendent à l'oublier.
Chez DP, rien ne semble pourtant définitif. «Nous sommes en discussion avec le comité permanent qui a été mis sur pied par la conférence des évêques, explique la directrice générale adjointe, Josianne Gauthier, qui précise que cette instance a été nouvellement fondée. Nous allons discuter de ces enjeux qui pourraient avoir un impact sur l'avenir de notre travail dans le Sud.» Selon elle, la requête d'obtenir le soutien d'un évêque vient de la conférence des évêques, qui souhaite un rapprochement avec l'Église dans les pays du Sud. «L'enjeu est d'un côté que le financement provenant de catholiques ne soit pas utilisé à des fins qui heurtent leurs valeurs. De l'autre côté, il y a une préoccupation sur le trop grand contrôle de ce qui pourrait être de l'aide au développement. Le débat doit se tenir.» Le comité devrait se réunir pour la première fois au mois de juin.
Développement et Paix - Le Sud perdra-t-il un allié au Nord?
Développement et Paix - Le Sud perdra-t-il un allié au Nord?
vendredi 27 mai 2011, Le Devoir
Constance Vaudrin, Lucille Plourde, Gérard Laverdure, Normand Breault - Membres de Développement et Paix 20 mai 2011 Canada
Nous, membres de Développement et Paix, sommes peinés par la crise qui secoue notre organisme, crise d'abord provoquée par les attaques intempestives de groupes catholiques qui se prétendent les real catholics, mais qui nous apparaissent plutôt quelque peu sectaires.
Nous regrettons — nous ne sommes pas seuls — qu'un certain nombre d'évêques prêtent une oreille trop attentive à ces groupes, tout en demeurant trop sourds aux appels à la solidarité lancés par les groupes partenaires de DP, engagés de toutes leurs forces dans la lutte contre les structures d'injustice et d'oppression affligeant plusieurs peuples du Sud.
Nous craignons fort pour ces peuples du Sud. En effet, pour tenter de satisfaire ces extrémistes, Développement et Paix décide d'obliger chaque partenaire à obtenir une lettre d'appui de l'évêque local pour pouvoir recevoir l'aide financière. On risque ainsi de priver certains partenaires d'un appui financier nécessaire.
Rappel aux évêques
Nous savons pourtant à quel point ces partenaires font un travail exemplaire pour ces peuples chez qui, très souvent encore, les droits de la personne sont bafoués, les femmes sont victimes de violences et d'injustice, les citoyens et les citoyennes ne peuvent s'exprimer librement. Et plusieurs partenaires oeuvrent dans des pays où l'Église catholique est fort minoritaire, ou encore sont des mouvements populaires laïques sans lien structurel avec cette même Église.
Nous voulons rappeler aux évêques d'ici, ainsi qu'aux autorités politiques et administratives de DP, l'existence des «structures de péché» selon la belle expression de Jean-Paul II. Pour ce pape, en effet, les gestes individuels ne peuvent pas être évalués isolément, en faisant abstraction du contexte social, local et mondial, dans lequel nous vivons.
Conseiller sans intrusion
Nous désirons que le comité épiscopal permanent, tout récemment institué, chargé des relations avec DP, joue à plein son rôle de conseiller, mais s'abstienne de toute intrusion dans la gestion interne de ce dernier, qui doit pouvoir jouir d'une autonomie entière et retrouver son fonctionnement démocratique, mis à mal ces derniers temps.
Nous rappelons enfin que, depuis Vatican II, la collaboration de catholiques avec des personnes ou groupes ne partageant pas toutes leurs valeurs est possible et souhaitable dans le cadre de cette ouverture de l'Église en fidélité à ce texte fondamental où il est affirmé: «Les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des hommes de ce temps, des pauvres surtout et de tous ceux qui souffrent, sont aussi les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des disciples du Christ, et il n'est rien de vraiment humain qui ne trouve écho dans leur coeur.»
***
Constance Vaudrin, Lucille Plourde, Gérard Laverdure, Normand Breault - Membres de Développement et Paix
vendredi 27 mai 2011, Le Devoir
Constance Vaudrin, Lucille Plourde, Gérard Laverdure, Normand Breault - Membres de Développement et Paix 20 mai 2011 Canada
Nous, membres de Développement et Paix, sommes peinés par la crise qui secoue notre organisme, crise d'abord provoquée par les attaques intempestives de groupes catholiques qui se prétendent les real catholics, mais qui nous apparaissent plutôt quelque peu sectaires.
Nous regrettons — nous ne sommes pas seuls — qu'un certain nombre d'évêques prêtent une oreille trop attentive à ces groupes, tout en demeurant trop sourds aux appels à la solidarité lancés par les groupes partenaires de DP, engagés de toutes leurs forces dans la lutte contre les structures d'injustice et d'oppression affligeant plusieurs peuples du Sud.
Nous craignons fort pour ces peuples du Sud. En effet, pour tenter de satisfaire ces extrémistes, Développement et Paix décide d'obliger chaque partenaire à obtenir une lettre d'appui de l'évêque local pour pouvoir recevoir l'aide financière. On risque ainsi de priver certains partenaires d'un appui financier nécessaire.
Rappel aux évêques
Nous savons pourtant à quel point ces partenaires font un travail exemplaire pour ces peuples chez qui, très souvent encore, les droits de la personne sont bafoués, les femmes sont victimes de violences et d'injustice, les citoyens et les citoyennes ne peuvent s'exprimer librement. Et plusieurs partenaires oeuvrent dans des pays où l'Église catholique est fort minoritaire, ou encore sont des mouvements populaires laïques sans lien structurel avec cette même Église.
Nous voulons rappeler aux évêques d'ici, ainsi qu'aux autorités politiques et administratives de DP, l'existence des «structures de péché» selon la belle expression de Jean-Paul II. Pour ce pape, en effet, les gestes individuels ne peuvent pas être évalués isolément, en faisant abstraction du contexte social, local et mondial, dans lequel nous vivons.
Conseiller sans intrusion
Nous désirons que le comité épiscopal permanent, tout récemment institué, chargé des relations avec DP, joue à plein son rôle de conseiller, mais s'abstienne de toute intrusion dans la gestion interne de ce dernier, qui doit pouvoir jouir d'une autonomie entière et retrouver son fonctionnement démocratique, mis à mal ces derniers temps.
Nous rappelons enfin que, depuis Vatican II, la collaboration de catholiques avec des personnes ou groupes ne partageant pas toutes leurs valeurs est possible et souhaitable dans le cadre de cette ouverture de l'Église en fidélité à ce texte fondamental où il est affirmé: «Les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des hommes de ce temps, des pauvres surtout et de tous ceux qui souffrent, sont aussi les joies et les espoirs, les tristesses et les angoisses des disciples du Christ, et il n'est rien de vraiment humain qui ne trouve écho dans leur coeur.»
***
Constance Vaudrin, Lucille Plourde, Gérard Laverdure, Normand Breault - Membres de Développement et Paix
Lettre d'appui à Développement et Paix
Managua, le 22 mai 2011
Mgr Pierre Morissette,
Président de la CECC
Bonjour Monseigneur,
Depuis le lointain Nicaragua, où je continue d’œuvrer en solidarité avec les populations pauvres, j’ai appris les accusations et la situation adverse que vit présentement Développement et Paix, organisme au sein duquel j’ai travaillé durant presque 30 ans, jusqu’en 2007.
D’ailleurs, vous vous rappellerez certainement de moi, et d’une fameuse délégation d’observation électorale au Mexique, en 1994, à laquelle vous avez vous-même participé, avec une dizaine d’autres personnes de Développement et Paix. J’aime me rappeler que cette délégation d’appui à l’organisation populaire mexicaine d’observation électorale, a contribué à ramener un gouvernement démocratique au Mexique, et à détrôner un parti qui s’était maintenu durant 71 ans au pouvoir par la coaction, la violence et la fraude. La même année, un membre de la CECC, Mgr François Thibodeau, s’était rendu au Chiapas avec une autre délégation, pour appuyer Mgr Samuel Ruiz (RIP), le médiateur des négociations de paix.
Ce ne sont là que deux des multiples actions et témoignages apportés au monde par les Évêques et l’Église catholique canadienne, par l’entremise de Développement et Paix. Des millions de personnes dans le monde, en Asie, en Afrique et en Amérique latine, reconnaissent l’appui désintéressé de notre Église en faveur du développement, de la justice sociale, de la démocratie et de la paix. Durant plus de 40 ans, cette organisation a réellement mis en pratique les enseignements de l’Encyclique Populorum Progressio, pour laquelle « le développement est le nouveau nom de la paix »
Durant toutes ces années, j’étais particulièrement fière de l’ouverture de notre Église, qui contrairement à d’autres dénominations religieuses, n’hésitait pas à venir en aide à tous nos frères et sœurs des pays du Sud, quels que soient leur race ou leur credo. J’ai été consternée d’apprendre que les partenaires de Développement et Paix doivent maintenant aller chercher l’appui de l’évêque de leur diocèse pour recevoir de l’aide. Cette directive me semble aller à l’encontre de la mission originale de Développement et Paix, telle que pensée par la Conférence des Évêques en 1967.
Je suis encore plus consternée, il va sans dire, par les attaques de groupes d’idéologie conservatrice qui prétendent être « les vrais catholiques », et se permettent de remettre en question l’intégrité et l’autorité morale de nos Évêques. Ces groupes n’ont cessé de s’attaquer vicieusement depuis des années à Développement et Paix, ce qui a des conséquences désastreuses pour les personnes et les groupes qui, dans les pays du Sud, bénéficient d’un soutien qui leur est essentiel.
Cette situation suscite mon indignation. Elle met en péril l’action d’une organisation que je considère être un des fleurons de l’Église catholique canadienne. Mgr Morissette, je vous demande d’appuyer fermement Développement et Paix dans ses orientations originales et ses actions de partenariat solidaire qui ont fait leurs preuves depuis plus de 40 ans.
Avec mes plus respectueuses et cordiales salutations,
Marthe Lapierre
Directrice de PROGA-Jeunes (programme bilatéral canadien)
SUCO Nicaragua
Mgr Pierre Morissette,
Président de la CECC
Bonjour Monseigneur,
Depuis le lointain Nicaragua, où je continue d’œuvrer en solidarité avec les populations pauvres, j’ai appris les accusations et la situation adverse que vit présentement Développement et Paix, organisme au sein duquel j’ai travaillé durant presque 30 ans, jusqu’en 2007.
D’ailleurs, vous vous rappellerez certainement de moi, et d’une fameuse délégation d’observation électorale au Mexique, en 1994, à laquelle vous avez vous-même participé, avec une dizaine d’autres personnes de Développement et Paix. J’aime me rappeler que cette délégation d’appui à l’organisation populaire mexicaine d’observation électorale, a contribué à ramener un gouvernement démocratique au Mexique, et à détrôner un parti qui s’était maintenu durant 71 ans au pouvoir par la coaction, la violence et la fraude. La même année, un membre de la CECC, Mgr François Thibodeau, s’était rendu au Chiapas avec une autre délégation, pour appuyer Mgr Samuel Ruiz (RIP), le médiateur des négociations de paix.
Ce ne sont là que deux des multiples actions et témoignages apportés au monde par les Évêques et l’Église catholique canadienne, par l’entremise de Développement et Paix. Des millions de personnes dans le monde, en Asie, en Afrique et en Amérique latine, reconnaissent l’appui désintéressé de notre Église en faveur du développement, de la justice sociale, de la démocratie et de la paix. Durant plus de 40 ans, cette organisation a réellement mis en pratique les enseignements de l’Encyclique Populorum Progressio, pour laquelle « le développement est le nouveau nom de la paix »
Durant toutes ces années, j’étais particulièrement fière de l’ouverture de notre Église, qui contrairement à d’autres dénominations religieuses, n’hésitait pas à venir en aide à tous nos frères et sœurs des pays du Sud, quels que soient leur race ou leur credo. J’ai été consternée d’apprendre que les partenaires de Développement et Paix doivent maintenant aller chercher l’appui de l’évêque de leur diocèse pour recevoir de l’aide. Cette directive me semble aller à l’encontre de la mission originale de Développement et Paix, telle que pensée par la Conférence des Évêques en 1967.
Je suis encore plus consternée, il va sans dire, par les attaques de groupes d’idéologie conservatrice qui prétendent être « les vrais catholiques », et se permettent de remettre en question l’intégrité et l’autorité morale de nos Évêques. Ces groupes n’ont cessé de s’attaquer vicieusement depuis des années à Développement et Paix, ce qui a des conséquences désastreuses pour les personnes et les groupes qui, dans les pays du Sud, bénéficient d’un soutien qui leur est essentiel.
Cette situation suscite mon indignation. Elle met en péril l’action d’une organisation que je considère être un des fleurons de l’Église catholique canadienne. Mgr Morissette, je vous demande d’appuyer fermement Développement et Paix dans ses orientations originales et ses actions de partenariat solidaire qui ont fait leurs preuves depuis plus de 40 ans.
Avec mes plus respectueuses et cordiales salutations,
Marthe Lapierre
Directrice de PROGA-Jeunes (programme bilatéral canadien)
SUCO Nicaragua
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Reflections on Development and Peace and its Struggle for Justice in the World
Reflections on Development and Peace and its Struggle
for Justice in the World
In response to concerns from members and others around the mission of Development and Peace in light of on-going criticisms from LifeSiteNews and its readers, I have been asked to write a few thoughts on my understanding of how Development and Peace, as a Catholic International Development agency, partners with others in the struggle for social justice. It’s important to note that I do this as someone who has no direct experience with the international programming of Development and Peace. I have, however, been active in D&P activities for over ten years for the Diocese of Saskatoon, with the STM Just Youth Group, and also with the National Education Committee of Development and Peace, responsible for its education program in Canada.
The Substance of the Critique
The criticisms of Development and Peace over the World March for Women and the contemporary attacks over its alleged support for abortion related activities - both originating from LifeSiteNews (2000, 2009) - have many similarities. In essence, and at its best, I think the critique can best be summarized by this fundamental question: How can a Catholic agency partner with another non- Catholic organization in the pursuit of a common goal when that non-Catholic partner holds differing beliefs and even acts contrary to Catholic understandings?
In the case of the World March for Women in 2000, the critique was framed likethis: how can Development and Peace, the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops (CCCB), the Catholic Women’s League of Canada (CWL) and the Canadian Religious Conference (CRC) support the World March for Women (a
coalition of organizations seeking to end violence against and poverty for women and children) when other participants in that action support such things as fully accessible abortion services, or an end to the discrimination against lesbians?
The Catholic Church, and Development and Peace, clearly oppose abortion as it offends/destroys the dignity of the human person, understood as operative from the beginning of human life to its natural end. The Catholic Church also recognizes the dignity of lesbian women, although it disagrees with others on how this dignity is realized. Discrimination against lesbians, per se, however, is clearly against Catholic doctrine.
So how did these Canadian Catholic institutions articulate their reasons for partnering with other organizations in the World March for Women? This is what the CCCB, the CWL, D&P and the CRC said in a joint letter: “As Catholic groups,we engage in the March in a spirit of respect for women around the world, acknowledging our differences and finding the common ground on which to build change” (CCCB, 2000). They stated, “We wish to underline that support of the general objectives of the World March of Women 2000 does not mean support for each and every one of the specific Canadian demands.” In other words, even though these four Catholic organizations could not agree with each and every demand (such as abortion), arising from a diverse group of organizations, they chose to cooperate on those areas of common concern. As the Catholic organizations put it, they cooperated, “to cancel Third World debt; to end loan conditions that force countries to cut education, health and basic services; to end sweatshop conditions in free trade zones; to ensure food security for countries; to end all trafficking in women and girls; to prosecute those using rape as a weapon of war.” Recognizing the significance of the World March for Women, involving 4,190 groups from 153 countries, the Catholic organizations refused to be excluded from participating in what they understood as a critical moment for the pursuit of social justice. They wrote: “We believe that Canadian Catholics should not allow themselves to be shut out of the March of Women because some groups decide to press for demands that are clearly unacceptable to us… The March of Women 2000 is a powerful bridge of solidarity to our sisters - across hemispheres, languages, faiths and experiences. They seek justice. We are there with them” (CCCB, 2000). The operating principle for partnering here is to honestly acknowledge differences, and to work collaboratively where possible in a justice seeking solidarity.
More recently, the focus of the critique was “that financial assistance by Development and Peace aided projects related to the promotion of abortion” in Mexico (CCCB, 2009). A United Nations document denouncing the deteriorating human rights context in Mexico was signed by many Mexican organizations, including five partners financially supported by Development and Peace. Of the 50 or so organizations that signed the document, some also had expressed in it their support for abortion services. The scope of the human rights abuses went well beyond the question of abortion (kidnappings and execution of journalists,
for example), and so Development and Peace’s Mexican partners (whose own expertise and advocacy concerned wider socio-political and economic processes of exclusion), as well as the Dominican and Jesuit orders, had signed the document expressing their desire to be a part of a movement to assist in addressing human rights abuses. The critique from LifeSiteNews was that by signing this document, Development and Peace (not the Dominicans and Jesuits?) was funding the promotion of abortion. A “Committee of Inquiry” of the CCCB, with help from the both US and Mexican Catholic Bishops found this to be untrue:
In its report on five Mexican Non-Governmental Organizations that had received project funding from Development and Peace, the Committee of Inquiry of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has come to the conclusion the allegations are unfounded… (CCCB, 2009) The Committee’s report tried to recognize the honest motivations for the Development and Peace partners, but also suggested that by signing a document that “endorsed several orientations” conflicting with Catholic doctrine, the D&P partners (not the Dominicans and Jesuits?) had acted “imprudently.”
We recognize that the five Mexican organizations assisted by Development and Peace were imprudent in signing the “Report on Civil Society Organizations for Universal Periodic Review”. At the same time,
we understand how, working in difficult circumstances, the intention was to be in solidarity with the more than 50 other groups working for human rights in Mexico, including religious orders such as the Dominicans and
Jesuits. Unfortunately, however, the Report they endorsed contains several orientations not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. (CCCB, 2009)
Perhaps because of the persistent and vociferous nature of the LifeSiteNews campaign against Development and Peace, the CCCB was on this occasion, when compared to the World March for Women response, more muted in its support for the D&P partners’ collaboration with other actors in support of human rights. One way to interpret the CCCB statement is that it defends the principle of working in solidarity on common projects with those with whom we differ, but that this decision remains a contingent one, depending upon particular circumstances, requiring “prudent” judgment. Catholic Theological Principles for Collaborating for Social Justice In light of the messy and complicated circumstances surrounding international development processes, I want to highlight from the Catholic Tradition some important principles to guide the partnering with “others” in pursuit of social justice aims.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: Partnering for Global Justice Development and Peace was founded in 1967, the same year as the pre-cursor to the contemporary Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Inspired by Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World), The Second Vatican Council generally, and the Encyclical Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples), both Development and Peace and the Justice and Peace commission of the Vatican sought to foster progress throughout the world in addressing the root causes of poverty and oppression. The objectives of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (articulated in 1988) include “promoting justice and peace in the world, in light of the Gospel and of the social teaching of the Church” (PCJP, 2010). It’s clear from its mandate that it seeks to work in dialogue with institutions within the Church, within academia, and with an ecumenical spirit, particularly with the World Council of Churches. It also seeks to work in dialogue with secular institutions and movements for social justice.
Finally, mention must be made of various links with secular organizations working for the promotion of justice, peace and the respect for human dignity. Over the years, relations with international organizations have increased considerably. Because of the interest of the Holy See in the work of the United Nations, the Pontifical Council, in collaboration with the Secretariat of State, has frequent contacts with the United Nations and its specialized agencies, especially at the time of the major international conferences that deal with such questions as development, population, environment, international trade, or human rights. Equal importance is given to regional organizations, among which the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Pontifical Council also welcomes exchanges with non-governmental organizations that share its aims and are working in the field of peace, justice and human rights (PCJP, website, 2010). Original Emphasis.
The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recognizes that it cannot act alone in the search for social justice. It must engage peoples, organizations and movements that inhabit a multitude of cultures, thought forms and practices that are not indigenous to Catholicism. What are the criteria for the collaboration?
The Pontifical Council notes that it “will foster relations with international Catholic organizations and with other bodies, be they Catholic or not, that are sincerely committed to the promotion of the values of justice and peace in the world.”(Ibid.) In other words, the principle for collaboration is not identification with Catholic doctrine, but sincere commitment to justice and peace. This is a critical distinction, and certainly one not appreciated by many of Development and Peace’s critics. Echoing the call of The Church in the Modern World (GS, 1-3) for the Church to act in solidarity with the world’s grief, anguish and poverty, we find here a fundamental sympathy with those struggling for a more just world. When the Church dialogues with those with whom it differs in the common pursuit of justice, it stands alongside humanity as sister and brother, and not as judge.
Nostra Aetate: A Commitment to Seeing the Good
Although not immediately apparent as a source for understanding principles for cooperation in international development, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) also provides some sage advice. While maintaining the universally salvific significance of Christ as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), the Church urges its members as they engage other religious peoples in dialogue that they “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these [peoples]” (NA, para 2).
When the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, or the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, seeks to work in solidarity with those groups with whom it differs in the work of justice, it begins with a sincere attempt to discover what is true and good in these partners’ work.
The Principle of Cooperation Contemporary Catholic institutions, whether in education, health care, or international development, to name but a few, enact their apostolates in a complex, pluralistic world. Collaboration and dialogue with other groups, both religious and secular, are critical to the effectiveness of these missions. Would St. Thomas More College and St. Paul’s Hospital in Saskatoon, or Development and Peace, be able to pursue their missions without government funding, from provincial and/or federal sources? Certainly their missions would be radically diminished in scope. Without CIDA funding Development and Peace would certainly have to withdraw from development projects and partnerships all over the Global South. So this cooperation with governments necessarily involves constant dialogue and negotiation. Bold assertions of Catholic belief alone will not justify or secure public funding – a public discourse is necessary, articulating how these Catholic institutions serve a greater common good that goes beyond the Catholic world.So what are, morally speaking, the parameters for justifiably working together as partners in a common cause? The Catholic tradition has engaged this difficult question through the use of the principle of legitimate cooperation. I would like to direct the reader to two condensed and pastoral explanations of the principle of legitimate cooperation: the Health Care Ethics Guide (2000) published by the Catholic Health Association of Canada, a guide approved by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Indiana based University of Notre Dame’s “Principles for Institutional Charitable Activity” policy, found on its President’s website (2010). The Health Care Ethics guide will obviously, for Canadian Catholics, be a more authoritative source, yet the Notre Dame policy is helpful because it arose in response to issues surrounding charitable giving specifically.
To begin with, the Health Care Ethics Guide (CHAC, 2000) notes that: “The principle of legitimate cooperation in the Catholic moral tradition acknowledges that, in some instances, the good that is sought can be achieved only through cooperation with what we find morally unacceptable” (p. 89). The key distinctions in this theory are between formal and material cooperation, and immediate and mediate cooperation. The University of Notre Dame (2010) puts it like this:
The Principle of Cooperation holds that it is always morally wrong to intend or approve of evil. Such illicit cooperation is called Formal Cooperation. Occasions may, however, arise when one does not intend
an evil act or practice but is in some way involved in it. This is called Material Cooperation. There are two types of material cooperation:
Immediate Material Cooperation and Mediate Material Cooperation.
Immediate Material Cooperation arises when the cooperating party performs the same illicit act as the wrongdoer, as, for example, a condition of their partnership. Immediate Material Cooperation in an intrinsically evil act is illicit though less culpable under circumstances of unusual duress.
Just to clarify here, an example of immediate material cooperation might be a nurse assisting in a direct abortion. In this case, s/he would be as involved in the procedure as the physician doing the operation. The nurse’s activity in this case is wrong, morally speaking. However, if the surgeon’s decision to undertake an illicit procedure during an operation leaves the nurse with little choice but to stay and attend at the event because of the risk of his or her departure upon the life of the patient, then the nurse could be considered to be acting under “unusual
duress.” In this instance, the moral tradition would say that although the nurse’s cooperative act was still illicit, it was not wrong (the example comes from the Health Ethics Guide, 2000). Other circumstances of “unusual duress” may be external pressure, or extreme financial harm (CHAC, 2000).
The Notre Dame (2010) explanation continues:
Mediate Material Cooperation is permitted in two kinds of cases. In the first case, it is possible clearly to distinguish the action or contribution of an individual or institution from the activities that are contrary to fundamental Catholic moral principles. In the second case, an action or contribution violates those principles, but there is a sufficiently serious reason for such cooperation. Sufficiently serious reasons include both (1)pursuing a good that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to attain and (2) the likelihood of performing a prophetic or educational role that contains or ends wrongdoing.
So let’s get concrete for a moment. Think back to the case of the Mexican partners of Development and Peace signing a UN document that also happens to be signed by groups supporting access to abortion. Obviously, Development and Peace did not fund these groups for abortion activity or promotion (so say theBishops), so there is no argument for “formal cooperation” in evil. Is there “material cooperation” in evil? In this instance, it’s hard to make the case as well that the Dominicans, Jesuits and Development and Peace partners are implicated in an evil simply by having their names appear on a document alongside other groups. Or, as the Notre Dame explanation suggests, it seems clearly possible to distinguish between the acts of Development and Peace’s partners in Mexico in signing the document in support of human rights from the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion. The Development and Peace partners,in fact, when questioned by the America wide “Committee of Inquiry” denied any attempt through their signings to make such a claim on abortion (CCCB, 2009).
Yet for the sake of argument, let’s say that, yes, Development and Peace is somehow caught up in a mediate material cooperation in an evil (that is, D&P is inadvertently caught up in their Mexican partner’s non-intentional act to promote abortion). Then such cooperation in this wrongdoing could be justifiable if eithera) the struggle for human rights in Mexico would be more difficult or impossible without D&P’s partners support, and or b) that this cooperation could be regarded as educational or prophetic in bringing some sort of diminishment or even end to the human rights abuses in Mexico. That is, there would be a concrete good arising from such cooperation. For both the World March of Women and the UN declaration on Human Rights in Mexico, I’m convinced that D&P would say that these historic opportunities to align the Catholic Church with the poor and for the purposes of achieving positive social change far outweigh any negative and unintended (and marginal) complicity in the material cooperation the act of promoting abortion.
The Health Ethics Guidelines (2000) also adds two cautionary points here to be heeded in legitimate cooperation. First, “As the gravity of the matter increases,the degree of distance between the cooperative action and the wrongdoing must increase” (p. 91). The question of abortion could certainly be called a grave matter (although it is not the only one, to be sure), so it is appropriate to seek a clear distance between the actions of Development and Peace’s partners and the desire of other organizations to advocate for abortion. What adds to the distance, it seems, is that fact that it is not Development and Peace that signedthe human rights declaration, but some of its physically remote partners, non- Catholic organizations, which would not be reasonably seen by any within Mexico as embodying or representing Catholic doctrine.
This reasoning naturally leads to the second point added by Health Ethics Guidelines (2000) that the possibility of scandal, or, “creating confusion between Catholic moral teaching and involvement in questionable procedures” should be eliminated (p. 91). Yet, the CHAC guidelines also leave open the possibility that “a prophetic stance in a community may seem to cause scandal to some, but this may be necessary for a greater good” (p. 91). If it has appeared scandalous to LifeSiteNews that Development and Peace has funded partners in Mexico, who in turn and of their own volition decided to support a statement advocating for human rights in Mexico alongside some other organizations who added their desire for the provision of abortion services, then that scandal might indeed be regarded by Development and Peace as necessary for the greater good of confronting the culture of human rights abuse in Mexico.
In fact Development and Peace activists might also consider the sin of “omission” as well, or the sin of failing to cooperate with a movement for social justice. Might not the Development and Peace cause the Church scandal and tarnish its reputation for very publically refusing to support its (non-Catholic) partners in an historic opportunity for achieving social justice? Hypothetically speaking, however, one can imagine a case where a Catholic institution funds projects in the Global South via a health care organization that, among a whole host of otherwise morally sound and worthwhile projects, also provides access to abortion. In this instance, what sort of cooperation would be involved? It is necessary here to also understand that the legal contracts that define the partnerships between Catholic institutions and non-Catholic institutions are usually very specific – contracts specifying precise services or actions. They are not partnerships that bind the Catholic Church to the support of each and every activity of the partnering organization, in principle or in practice. So, back to our concern, once again unless the Catholic organization was willingly and knowingly supportive of the specific act to provide abortion, then the cooperation is not formal. So we are dealing with some kind of material cooperation in the, for Catholics, objective evil of abortion. Are there any circumstances in which such funding from a Catholic partner would be, although a material cooperation in the
objective evil of abortion, justifiable? One can imagine a health clinic in Zimbabwe that provides a whole suite of desperately needed services in the fight against AIDS, which has infected large amounts of the population. A small aspect of their work is the provision of abortion. Is there any way for Catholics to assist in this terrible situation? Does the abortion service negate the goodness of the entire range of medical care, support and education given? Cannot the Catholic Church partner to support those specific aspects of the health care provider that are in concert with Catholic views? This dilemma, in one form or another, arises for all Catholic Health Care institutions that receive public money.
So how do they proceed?
Notre Dame University (2010) has a series of guiding questions that, I think, help in such discernment processes. They summarize the kinds of questions necessary for discerning the practice of legitimate cooperation with non-Catholic institutions in morally ambiguous situations:
1. Are there alternative organizations which make a proportionate contribution to the common good yet without engaging in morally illicit activities and practices?
2. How great is the good to be achieved or the evil to be avoided by contributing to this organization?
3. How grave is the evil done or condoned by this organization?
4. How separate is the funded activity or practice from morally illicit activities and practices?
5. What is the likelihood of causing scandal by associating with the organization?
6. Can we credibly explain to the community that our association is both valuable to the work at hand and compatible with our Catholic character and mission?
7. What is the probability of effecting moral change in the organization by continuing to support it rather than by withdrawing support?
(University of Notre Dame, 2010)
As you can see, these questions do not allow for simplistic answers. They require contextual, nuanced and specific judgments that are not absolute. They require much discernment, and presume an informed, and one would hope, compassionate Catholic conscience. Dialogue with Bishops and Church leadership is essential.
Partnering for Justice in a Broken World
In the face of extraordinary suffering, poverty and injustice in the world, Development and Peace recognizes the critical importance of collaborating with non-Catholic partners (and Catholic ones too, of course) in the work to defend and promote human dignity and an equitable distribution of the world’s goods. Operating across cultures, religions, modes of thought and customs, Development and Peace believes that it is possible to work with others who disagree with us in mutually respectful and beneficial ways that serve a common good.
In closing, I would like to quote the vision of the authors of the Canadian Health Ethics Guidelines (2000). They see partnering with non-Catholic institutions not primarily as a threat to Catholic identity, but as an opportunity for a truly incarnated presence of the Church’s values in the world. In doing so, I think they encapsulate the vision of the Second Vatican Council as well, as it’s expressed in the Church’s service to our broken world (Church in the Modern World), in a spirit of respectful dialogue, and always seeking the good in the “other” (Declaration Concerning Non-Christian Religions), and in a justice seeking solidarity (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace). Taking leadership and influencing public policy in our pluralistic society is a prophetic responsibility to which Catholic individuals and organizations are called. The principle of material cooperation may provide valuable direction not only for individuals but also for organizations under the sponsorship of a specific religious perspective and in partnership with organizations that may not share Catholic moral principles. Such a broadening of the boundaries regarding the use of the principle of legitimate cooperation makes it possible for Catholic organizations to consider entering into new partnership arrangements in order to implement and promote the Church’s social teaching, the preferential option for the poor, and the dignity of the human person. In this way, religiously-based health care and social service organizations can continue to provide a powerful presence and voice for these human values
within society. Development and Peace’s struggle for justice in our world today is not a threat to the purity of our Church, but conversely one of its most transparent signs of God’s reign of peace and justice.
David Peacock, M.Div, M.C.Ed.
Member, Development and Peace
May 11, 2010
N.B. The reflections in this text are mine alone, as a Development and Peace member, and certainly cannot be said to represent the official views of Development and Peace nor the Catholic Church. I hope, however, that theyhave found faithful inspiration from both sources
for Justice in the World
In response to concerns from members and others around the mission of Development and Peace in light of on-going criticisms from LifeSiteNews and its readers, I have been asked to write a few thoughts on my understanding of how Development and Peace, as a Catholic International Development agency, partners with others in the struggle for social justice. It’s important to note that I do this as someone who has no direct experience with the international programming of Development and Peace. I have, however, been active in D&P activities for over ten years for the Diocese of Saskatoon, with the STM Just Youth Group, and also with the National Education Committee of Development and Peace, responsible for its education program in Canada.
The Substance of the Critique
The criticisms of Development and Peace over the World March for Women and the contemporary attacks over its alleged support for abortion related activities - both originating from LifeSiteNews (2000, 2009) - have many similarities. In essence, and at its best, I think the critique can best be summarized by this fundamental question: How can a Catholic agency partner with another non- Catholic organization in the pursuit of a common goal when that non-Catholic partner holds differing beliefs and even acts contrary to Catholic understandings?
In the case of the World March for Women in 2000, the critique was framed likethis: how can Development and Peace, the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops (CCCB), the Catholic Women’s League of Canada (CWL) and the Canadian Religious Conference (CRC) support the World March for Women (a
coalition of organizations seeking to end violence against and poverty for women and children) when other participants in that action support such things as fully accessible abortion services, or an end to the discrimination against lesbians?
The Catholic Church, and Development and Peace, clearly oppose abortion as it offends/destroys the dignity of the human person, understood as operative from the beginning of human life to its natural end. The Catholic Church also recognizes the dignity of lesbian women, although it disagrees with others on how this dignity is realized. Discrimination against lesbians, per se, however, is clearly against Catholic doctrine.
So how did these Canadian Catholic institutions articulate their reasons for partnering with other organizations in the World March for Women? This is what the CCCB, the CWL, D&P and the CRC said in a joint letter: “As Catholic groups,we engage in the March in a spirit of respect for women around the world, acknowledging our differences and finding the common ground on which to build change” (CCCB, 2000). They stated, “We wish to underline that support of the general objectives of the World March of Women 2000 does not mean support for each and every one of the specific Canadian demands.” In other words, even though these four Catholic organizations could not agree with each and every demand (such as abortion), arising from a diverse group of organizations, they chose to cooperate on those areas of common concern. As the Catholic organizations put it, they cooperated, “to cancel Third World debt; to end loan conditions that force countries to cut education, health and basic services; to end sweatshop conditions in free trade zones; to ensure food security for countries; to end all trafficking in women and girls; to prosecute those using rape as a weapon of war.” Recognizing the significance of the World March for Women, involving 4,190 groups from 153 countries, the Catholic organizations refused to be excluded from participating in what they understood as a critical moment for the pursuit of social justice. They wrote: “We believe that Canadian Catholics should not allow themselves to be shut out of the March of Women because some groups decide to press for demands that are clearly unacceptable to us… The March of Women 2000 is a powerful bridge of solidarity to our sisters - across hemispheres, languages, faiths and experiences. They seek justice. We are there with them” (CCCB, 2000). The operating principle for partnering here is to honestly acknowledge differences, and to work collaboratively where possible in a justice seeking solidarity.
More recently, the focus of the critique was “that financial assistance by Development and Peace aided projects related to the promotion of abortion” in Mexico (CCCB, 2009). A United Nations document denouncing the deteriorating human rights context in Mexico was signed by many Mexican organizations, including five partners financially supported by Development and Peace. Of the 50 or so organizations that signed the document, some also had expressed in it their support for abortion services. The scope of the human rights abuses went well beyond the question of abortion (kidnappings and execution of journalists,
for example), and so Development and Peace’s Mexican partners (whose own expertise and advocacy concerned wider socio-political and economic processes of exclusion), as well as the Dominican and Jesuit orders, had signed the document expressing their desire to be a part of a movement to assist in addressing human rights abuses. The critique from LifeSiteNews was that by signing this document, Development and Peace (not the Dominicans and Jesuits?) was funding the promotion of abortion. A “Committee of Inquiry” of the CCCB, with help from the both US and Mexican Catholic Bishops found this to be untrue:
In its report on five Mexican Non-Governmental Organizations that had received project funding from Development and Peace, the Committee of Inquiry of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has come to the conclusion the allegations are unfounded… (CCCB, 2009) The Committee’s report tried to recognize the honest motivations for the Development and Peace partners, but also suggested that by signing a document that “endorsed several orientations” conflicting with Catholic doctrine, the D&P partners (not the Dominicans and Jesuits?) had acted “imprudently.”
We recognize that the five Mexican organizations assisted by Development and Peace were imprudent in signing the “Report on Civil Society Organizations for Universal Periodic Review”. At the same time,
we understand how, working in difficult circumstances, the intention was to be in solidarity with the more than 50 other groups working for human rights in Mexico, including religious orders such as the Dominicans and
Jesuits. Unfortunately, however, the Report they endorsed contains several orientations not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. (CCCB, 2009)
Perhaps because of the persistent and vociferous nature of the LifeSiteNews campaign against Development and Peace, the CCCB was on this occasion, when compared to the World March for Women response, more muted in its support for the D&P partners’ collaboration with other actors in support of human rights. One way to interpret the CCCB statement is that it defends the principle of working in solidarity on common projects with those with whom we differ, but that this decision remains a contingent one, depending upon particular circumstances, requiring “prudent” judgment. Catholic Theological Principles for Collaborating for Social Justice In light of the messy and complicated circumstances surrounding international development processes, I want to highlight from the Catholic Tradition some important principles to guide the partnering with “others” in pursuit of social justice aims.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: Partnering for Global Justice Development and Peace was founded in 1967, the same year as the pre-cursor to the contemporary Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Inspired by Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World), The Second Vatican Council generally, and the Encyclical Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples), both Development and Peace and the Justice and Peace commission of the Vatican sought to foster progress throughout the world in addressing the root causes of poverty and oppression. The objectives of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (articulated in 1988) include “promoting justice and peace in the world, in light of the Gospel and of the social teaching of the Church” (PCJP, 2010). It’s clear from its mandate that it seeks to work in dialogue with institutions within the Church, within academia, and with an ecumenical spirit, particularly with the World Council of Churches. It also seeks to work in dialogue with secular institutions and movements for social justice.
Finally, mention must be made of various links with secular organizations working for the promotion of justice, peace and the respect for human dignity. Over the years, relations with international organizations have increased considerably. Because of the interest of the Holy See in the work of the United Nations, the Pontifical Council, in collaboration with the Secretariat of State, has frequent contacts with the United Nations and its specialized agencies, especially at the time of the major international conferences that deal with such questions as development, population, environment, international trade, or human rights. Equal importance is given to regional organizations, among which the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Pontifical Council also welcomes exchanges with non-governmental organizations that share its aims and are working in the field of peace, justice and human rights (PCJP, website, 2010). Original Emphasis.
The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recognizes that it cannot act alone in the search for social justice. It must engage peoples, organizations and movements that inhabit a multitude of cultures, thought forms and practices that are not indigenous to Catholicism. What are the criteria for the collaboration?
The Pontifical Council notes that it “will foster relations with international Catholic organizations and with other bodies, be they Catholic or not, that are sincerely committed to the promotion of the values of justice and peace in the world.”(Ibid.) In other words, the principle for collaboration is not identification with Catholic doctrine, but sincere commitment to justice and peace. This is a critical distinction, and certainly one not appreciated by many of Development and Peace’s critics. Echoing the call of The Church in the Modern World (GS, 1-3) for the Church to act in solidarity with the world’s grief, anguish and poverty, we find here a fundamental sympathy with those struggling for a more just world. When the Church dialogues with those with whom it differs in the common pursuit of justice, it stands alongside humanity as sister and brother, and not as judge.
Nostra Aetate: A Commitment to Seeing the Good
Although not immediately apparent as a source for understanding principles for cooperation in international development, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) also provides some sage advice. While maintaining the universally salvific significance of Christ as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), the Church urges its members as they engage other religious peoples in dialogue that they “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these [peoples]” (NA, para 2).
When the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, or the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, seeks to work in solidarity with those groups with whom it differs in the work of justice, it begins with a sincere attempt to discover what is true and good in these partners’ work.
The Principle of Cooperation Contemporary Catholic institutions, whether in education, health care, or international development, to name but a few, enact their apostolates in a complex, pluralistic world. Collaboration and dialogue with other groups, both religious and secular, are critical to the effectiveness of these missions. Would St. Thomas More College and St. Paul’s Hospital in Saskatoon, or Development and Peace, be able to pursue their missions without government funding, from provincial and/or federal sources? Certainly their missions would be radically diminished in scope. Without CIDA funding Development and Peace would certainly have to withdraw from development projects and partnerships all over the Global South. So this cooperation with governments necessarily involves constant dialogue and negotiation. Bold assertions of Catholic belief alone will not justify or secure public funding – a public discourse is necessary, articulating how these Catholic institutions serve a greater common good that goes beyond the Catholic world.So what are, morally speaking, the parameters for justifiably working together as partners in a common cause? The Catholic tradition has engaged this difficult question through the use of the principle of legitimate cooperation. I would like to direct the reader to two condensed and pastoral explanations of the principle of legitimate cooperation: the Health Care Ethics Guide (2000) published by the Catholic Health Association of Canada, a guide approved by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Indiana based University of Notre Dame’s “Principles for Institutional Charitable Activity” policy, found on its President’s website (2010). The Health Care Ethics guide will obviously, for Canadian Catholics, be a more authoritative source, yet the Notre Dame policy is helpful because it arose in response to issues surrounding charitable giving specifically.
To begin with, the Health Care Ethics Guide (CHAC, 2000) notes that: “The principle of legitimate cooperation in the Catholic moral tradition acknowledges that, in some instances, the good that is sought can be achieved only through cooperation with what we find morally unacceptable” (p. 89). The key distinctions in this theory are between formal and material cooperation, and immediate and mediate cooperation. The University of Notre Dame (2010) puts it like this:
The Principle of Cooperation holds that it is always morally wrong to intend or approve of evil. Such illicit cooperation is called Formal Cooperation. Occasions may, however, arise when one does not intend
an evil act or practice but is in some way involved in it. This is called Material Cooperation. There are two types of material cooperation:
Immediate Material Cooperation and Mediate Material Cooperation.
Immediate Material Cooperation arises when the cooperating party performs the same illicit act as the wrongdoer, as, for example, a condition of their partnership. Immediate Material Cooperation in an intrinsically evil act is illicit though less culpable under circumstances of unusual duress.
Just to clarify here, an example of immediate material cooperation might be a nurse assisting in a direct abortion. In this case, s/he would be as involved in the procedure as the physician doing the operation. The nurse’s activity in this case is wrong, morally speaking. However, if the surgeon’s decision to undertake an illicit procedure during an operation leaves the nurse with little choice but to stay and attend at the event because of the risk of his or her departure upon the life of the patient, then the nurse could be considered to be acting under “unusual
duress.” In this instance, the moral tradition would say that although the nurse’s cooperative act was still illicit, it was not wrong (the example comes from the Health Ethics Guide, 2000). Other circumstances of “unusual duress” may be external pressure, or extreme financial harm (CHAC, 2000).
The Notre Dame (2010) explanation continues:
Mediate Material Cooperation is permitted in two kinds of cases. In the first case, it is possible clearly to distinguish the action or contribution of an individual or institution from the activities that are contrary to fundamental Catholic moral principles. In the second case, an action or contribution violates those principles, but there is a sufficiently serious reason for such cooperation. Sufficiently serious reasons include both (1)pursuing a good that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to attain and (2) the likelihood of performing a prophetic or educational role that contains or ends wrongdoing.
So let’s get concrete for a moment. Think back to the case of the Mexican partners of Development and Peace signing a UN document that also happens to be signed by groups supporting access to abortion. Obviously, Development and Peace did not fund these groups for abortion activity or promotion (so say theBishops), so there is no argument for “formal cooperation” in evil. Is there “material cooperation” in evil? In this instance, it’s hard to make the case as well that the Dominicans, Jesuits and Development and Peace partners are implicated in an evil simply by having their names appear on a document alongside other groups. Or, as the Notre Dame explanation suggests, it seems clearly possible to distinguish between the acts of Development and Peace’s partners in Mexico in signing the document in support of human rights from the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion. The Development and Peace partners,in fact, when questioned by the America wide “Committee of Inquiry” denied any attempt through their signings to make such a claim on abortion (CCCB, 2009).
Yet for the sake of argument, let’s say that, yes, Development and Peace is somehow caught up in a mediate material cooperation in an evil (that is, D&P is inadvertently caught up in their Mexican partner’s non-intentional act to promote abortion). Then such cooperation in this wrongdoing could be justifiable if eithera) the struggle for human rights in Mexico would be more difficult or impossible without D&P’s partners support, and or b) that this cooperation could be regarded as educational or prophetic in bringing some sort of diminishment or even end to the human rights abuses in Mexico. That is, there would be a concrete good arising from such cooperation. For both the World March of Women and the UN declaration on Human Rights in Mexico, I’m convinced that D&P would say that these historic opportunities to align the Catholic Church with the poor and for the purposes of achieving positive social change far outweigh any negative and unintended (and marginal) complicity in the material cooperation the act of promoting abortion.
The Health Ethics Guidelines (2000) also adds two cautionary points here to be heeded in legitimate cooperation. First, “As the gravity of the matter increases,the degree of distance between the cooperative action and the wrongdoing must increase” (p. 91). The question of abortion could certainly be called a grave matter (although it is not the only one, to be sure), so it is appropriate to seek a clear distance between the actions of Development and Peace’s partners and the desire of other organizations to advocate for abortion. What adds to the distance, it seems, is that fact that it is not Development and Peace that signedthe human rights declaration, but some of its physically remote partners, non- Catholic organizations, which would not be reasonably seen by any within Mexico as embodying or representing Catholic doctrine.
This reasoning naturally leads to the second point added by Health Ethics Guidelines (2000) that the possibility of scandal, or, “creating confusion between Catholic moral teaching and involvement in questionable procedures” should be eliminated (p. 91). Yet, the CHAC guidelines also leave open the possibility that “a prophetic stance in a community may seem to cause scandal to some, but this may be necessary for a greater good” (p. 91). If it has appeared scandalous to LifeSiteNews that Development and Peace has funded partners in Mexico, who in turn and of their own volition decided to support a statement advocating for human rights in Mexico alongside some other organizations who added their desire for the provision of abortion services, then that scandal might indeed be regarded by Development and Peace as necessary for the greater good of confronting the culture of human rights abuse in Mexico.
In fact Development and Peace activists might also consider the sin of “omission” as well, or the sin of failing to cooperate with a movement for social justice. Might not the Development and Peace cause the Church scandal and tarnish its reputation for very publically refusing to support its (non-Catholic) partners in an historic opportunity for achieving social justice? Hypothetically speaking, however, one can imagine a case where a Catholic institution funds projects in the Global South via a health care organization that, among a whole host of otherwise morally sound and worthwhile projects, also provides access to abortion. In this instance, what sort of cooperation would be involved? It is necessary here to also understand that the legal contracts that define the partnerships between Catholic institutions and non-Catholic institutions are usually very specific – contracts specifying precise services or actions. They are not partnerships that bind the Catholic Church to the support of each and every activity of the partnering organization, in principle or in practice. So, back to our concern, once again unless the Catholic organization was willingly and knowingly supportive of the specific act to provide abortion, then the cooperation is not formal. So we are dealing with some kind of material cooperation in the, for Catholics, objective evil of abortion. Are there any circumstances in which such funding from a Catholic partner would be, although a material cooperation in the
objective evil of abortion, justifiable? One can imagine a health clinic in Zimbabwe that provides a whole suite of desperately needed services in the fight against AIDS, which has infected large amounts of the population. A small aspect of their work is the provision of abortion. Is there any way for Catholics to assist in this terrible situation? Does the abortion service negate the goodness of the entire range of medical care, support and education given? Cannot the Catholic Church partner to support those specific aspects of the health care provider that are in concert with Catholic views? This dilemma, in one form or another, arises for all Catholic Health Care institutions that receive public money.
So how do they proceed?
Notre Dame University (2010) has a series of guiding questions that, I think, help in such discernment processes. They summarize the kinds of questions necessary for discerning the practice of legitimate cooperation with non-Catholic institutions in morally ambiguous situations:
1. Are there alternative organizations which make a proportionate contribution to the common good yet without engaging in morally illicit activities and practices?
2. How great is the good to be achieved or the evil to be avoided by contributing to this organization?
3. How grave is the evil done or condoned by this organization?
4. How separate is the funded activity or practice from morally illicit activities and practices?
5. What is the likelihood of causing scandal by associating with the organization?
6. Can we credibly explain to the community that our association is both valuable to the work at hand and compatible with our Catholic character and mission?
7. What is the probability of effecting moral change in the organization by continuing to support it rather than by withdrawing support?
(University of Notre Dame, 2010)
As you can see, these questions do not allow for simplistic answers. They require contextual, nuanced and specific judgments that are not absolute. They require much discernment, and presume an informed, and one would hope, compassionate Catholic conscience. Dialogue with Bishops and Church leadership is essential.
Partnering for Justice in a Broken World
In the face of extraordinary suffering, poverty and injustice in the world, Development and Peace recognizes the critical importance of collaborating with non-Catholic partners (and Catholic ones too, of course) in the work to defend and promote human dignity and an equitable distribution of the world’s goods. Operating across cultures, religions, modes of thought and customs, Development and Peace believes that it is possible to work with others who disagree with us in mutually respectful and beneficial ways that serve a common good.
In closing, I would like to quote the vision of the authors of the Canadian Health Ethics Guidelines (2000). They see partnering with non-Catholic institutions not primarily as a threat to Catholic identity, but as an opportunity for a truly incarnated presence of the Church’s values in the world. In doing so, I think they encapsulate the vision of the Second Vatican Council as well, as it’s expressed in the Church’s service to our broken world (Church in the Modern World), in a spirit of respectful dialogue, and always seeking the good in the “other” (Declaration Concerning Non-Christian Religions), and in a justice seeking solidarity (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace). Taking leadership and influencing public policy in our pluralistic society is a prophetic responsibility to which Catholic individuals and organizations are called. The principle of material cooperation may provide valuable direction not only for individuals but also for organizations under the sponsorship of a specific religious perspective and in partnership with organizations that may not share Catholic moral principles. Such a broadening of the boundaries regarding the use of the principle of legitimate cooperation makes it possible for Catholic organizations to consider entering into new partnership arrangements in order to implement and promote the Church’s social teaching, the preferential option for the poor, and the dignity of the human person. In this way, religiously-based health care and social service organizations can continue to provide a powerful presence and voice for these human values
within society. Development and Peace’s struggle for justice in our world today is not a threat to the purity of our Church, but conversely one of its most transparent signs of God’s reign of peace and justice.
David Peacock, M.Div, M.C.Ed.
Member, Development and Peace
May 11, 2010
N.B. The reflections in this text are mine alone, as a Development and Peace member, and certainly cannot be said to represent the official views of Development and Peace nor the Catholic Church. I hope, however, that theyhave found faithful inspiration from both sources
To Fr. Arriaga and the staff of the Center PRODH,
The unionized employees of Development and Peace wish to express their solidarity toyou and the staff of the Center PRODH in this difficult time.
We, the unionized employees of Development and Peace, have been proud to work towards supporting an organization like the Center PRODH that is striving to make positive changes in the world and seek justice for those forgotten and without a voice.
We gratefully acknowledge the excellence and integrity consistently demonstrated by the staff of the center in their tireless efforts to defend the most difficult cases and overturn injustice – injustices that even we ourselves at times cannot escape.
There is no easy way to express our deep regret over this situation. Please rest assured that the unionized employees of Development and Peace have faith in the work of the Center PRODH. Our shared commitment towards the poor and marginalized unites us beyond borders and joins us in the struggle for a fair and equitable world.
The tremendous courage exhibited by the staff of the Center PRODH in defending human rights in Mexico has been a great inspiration to us and we hope that you will be able to draw on this courage during these moments that challenge us all.
Présidente
Syndicat des employées et employés
Développement et Paix
The unionized employees of Development and Peace wish to express their solidarity toyou and the staff of the Center PRODH in this difficult time.
We, the unionized employees of Development and Peace, have been proud to work towards supporting an organization like the Center PRODH that is striving to make positive changes in the world and seek justice for those forgotten and without a voice.
We gratefully acknowledge the excellence and integrity consistently demonstrated by the staff of the center in their tireless efforts to defend the most difficult cases and overturn injustice – injustices that even we ourselves at times cannot escape.
There is no easy way to express our deep regret over this situation. Please rest assured that the unionized employees of Development and Peace have faith in the work of the Center PRODH. Our shared commitment towards the poor and marginalized unites us beyond borders and joins us in the struggle for a fair and equitable world.
The tremendous courage exhibited by the staff of the Center PRODH in defending human rights in Mexico has been a great inspiration to us and we hope that you will be able to draw on this courage during these moments that challenge us all.
Présidente
Syndicat des employées et employés
Développement et Paix
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)