D&P controversy heats up at bishops' plenary

Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News Tuesday, 18 October 2011 08:52

http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13147-development-and-peace-controversy-heats-up-at-bishops-plenary

 OTTAWA - Controversy surrounding the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) continued to dog Canada’s bishops as they began their annual plenary Oct. 17-21 in Cornwall, Ont.

On day one of Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' gathering of 90 bishops from across Canada, a Quebec pro-life group dropped off a 400-name petition demanding a complete review of CCODP, while the editor of LifeSiteNews.com, whose coverage has fuelled much of the controversy, was asked to leave the premises.

Accusations that the bishops' international development agency has been funding pro-abortion groups have been swirling over the past few years and has led to investigations by the Canadian bishops, who have formed a standing committee to liaise with CCODP. 

Those who signed the petition, organized by Quebec Campagne-Vie (QCV), said they were “deeply troubled by claims which appear to us as being well founded” that CCODP funds agencies in the developing world “that promote abortion, contraception and ideologies that run counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“We’re worried that only the tip of the iceberg has been exposed and we implore the bishops to explore (CCODP's) mandate from top to bottom,” said George Buscemi, who delivered the petition. “All teachings of the Church must be respected.” 

Drama intensified Oct. 17 when the CCCB media relations officer asked LifeSiteNews editor John-Henry Westen to leave the premises shortly after he attended the morning prayer and Mass.

In an interview from Cornwall, Westen said he had driven five hours from his home in Combermere only to be told by the CCCB media relations officer he could not attend the public sessions. LifeSiteNews had received media accreditation in 2009 and 2010, well after it began its negative reports about CCODP partners. CCCB communications director Rene Laprise told Westen he had sent an e-mail Oct. 13 advising Westen he would not be granted access to the public portion of the plenary, which he re-sent Oct. 17 because Westen said he never received it.

“The leadership of our conference has expressed serious concerns over the manner in which positions have been taken by your organization,” Laprise’s e-mail said. “Our executive officers in turn have indicated that the CCCB Media Relations Officer should exercise caution in dealing with your organization.”

“I find the whole thing really unfortunate,” said Westen. “Would they ban the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun or the Globe and Mail because they often hold positions a lot more antagonistic to the Catholic Church than I ever would?”

But the pressure did not only come from the pro-life side. In the days leading up to the plenary, the union representing CCODP members wrote each bishop about concerns the agency was losing its democratic lay-run character. The letter urged the bishops to stand up for the agency, saying “repeated attacks” have “destabilized” it.

Also, in early October, former CCODP executive director Fabien Leboeuf issued a report that the conflict between LifeSiteNews and CCODP is nothing new, noting the agency came under attack by “an extreme right group (Tradition, Family, Property) in the 1970s that alleged it was providing political and financial support to armed conflict in the South and that it was infiltrated “by a group of militant Marxists.”

Leboeuf said the attacks over the years have a similar pattern: all accusations came from the political or Christian right, some bishops were prepared to “lend credit and legitimacy” to the accusations, investigations “exonerated” CCODP of any wrongdoing and each time, the bishops adopted measures to increase episcopal control over the agency.

CCCB president Pierre Morissette said the plenary will discuss two major reports: one by the Standing Committee on CCODP and the other by the Ad Hoc Committee for Life and Family that includes a “proposal for immediate and future pastoral planning.”

“Part of the challenge facing us is to remind our faithful how these two areas of concern are intimately inter-related,” said Morissette, whose term as president is up at the conclusion of the plenary. “Justice and human rights include respect for all human life,” and includes “concern for the human person from conception to natural death, and thus every moment in between."

Morissette urged members of both the CCCB and CCODP “to find the means to continue working together, to strengthen and improve collaboration and to renew a common witness.”

Morissette said he is confident the CCCB’s Standing Committee “will prove an effective way for us bishops to move forward in accompanying and renewing Development and Peace in its work and mission.”

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE On the impact of recent decisions on the organization’s nature, mission and governance

This document deals largely with recent CCCB decisions – the creation of a standing committee on Development and Peace, the prior approval of projects by bishops in the South, and the withdrawal of the two bishop members from Development and Peace's National Council – which in our opinion challenges the very nature, mission and governance of the Canadian Church's international solidarity organization.

We will discuss each of these three factors more explicitly in the context of the spirit, objectives, and mission of Development and Peace, as outlined in the organization's General Bylaws.

General Bylaws (2005)

3. Objectives and mission

The organization is a democratic movement for international solidarity incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporation Act by letters patent dated October 20, 1967. Founded and mandated by the Bishops of Canada en 1967, as the Canadian Catholic development agency, the Organization is inspired by the values of the Gospel, particularly the preferential option for the poor. Its objectives are to promote international solidarity through an education program in Canada and through financial support of socio‐economic projects in developing countries. The Organization's orientations and objectives are further described in its letters patent and mission statement.

1. Its nature

1.1 A microcosm of the post‐Vatican II Church

As an organization inspired by the Second Vatican Council, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was founded on the concept of the Church as the people of God. All National Council members, including the two bishops appointed by the CCCB, have the same right of voice and vote. In terms of governance, laypeople have almost always occupied the positions of President of the National Council and Executive Director.

The recent CCCB decisions discussed above suggest a total takeover of the organization by the bishops, both in Canada and in the countries where DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE works with its partners, and seriously undermines the importance given to the role of laypeople over the history of the organization. In addition, planning to withdraw the two bishops from the National Council and integrating these into the Standing Committee established by the CCCB¹, is akin to amputating one of the fundamental characteristics central to the organization’s very nature.

1.2 A democratic international solidarity movement²

People are at the root of democracy and they have the right to information on the policies and actions underway within the organization if they are to participate effectively in the accomplishment of the organization’s mission. With this in mind, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has always relied upon the participation of its staff³, members and partners⁴ in the design of its education and development programs. In this respect, its Regional Meetings and Orientation Assembly are good examples of international solidarity and democracy in action.

However, at this point the National Council, the staff and other members of the movement do not appear to be sufficiently informed, or even consulted, around events occurring at the senior levels of the CCCB and of Development and Peace. In this respect, one might ask why our letter to the President of the National Council, and by extension to all members of the National Council, was not brought to the Council's attention at its regular June meeting. Why was the Theological Reflection Committee⁵ not represented on the DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE committee created to dialogue with the CCCB's committee? We might also asked why the list the CCCB demands were given to Development and Peace's General Management without there being any possibility of prior discussion with the staff in the departments directly concerned with the activities upon which the requirements were being imposed.

1.3 An organization that is open to the world

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE "supports partners in the Global South in the pursuit of alternatives to unjust social, political and economic structures. […] In the struggle for human dignity, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE associates with social change groups in the North and South. It supports women in the search for social and economic justice⁶". Even if closely identified with the Catholic Church and in accord with an evangelical vision of its development work, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE works with groups "without distinction on the basis of race, belief or ideology⁷".

However, the CCCB’s recent requirements may result in restricting its activities to the Catholic community, or to efforts selected by Southern bishops, which could in effect undercut the whole intent of projects supporting greater social justice, or militate against projects addressed to women victims of violence, despite their dire need for support.

2.   Its mission

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is the product of the Second Vatican Council and the pleas of Southern bishops facing the glaring inequalities between their countries and those in the North. Its mission is:

     "inspired by Gospel values, and particularly the preferential option for the poor⁸";

     Couched in an understanding of development based on justice, the organization's "objective is to support international solidarity by a program of education in Canada and by funding socio‐economic development projects in developing countries⁹";

     inspired by the social teachings of the Church from Leo XIII 13^th, through John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, to Benedict XVI.

However, by limiting oneself solely to Benedict XVI and to Caritas in Veritate¹⁰, which relates the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi to Populorum Progressio (no 15), do we not on the one hand risk limiting the area of application of this social message, and on the other that of over emphasizing the moral issues raised in Humanae Vitae and the pastoral concerns raised in Evangelii Nuntiandi¹¹? As for example, the questioning of projects to assist abused women and rape victims, as well as advocacy work with governments to promote greater social and economic justice.

3.   Its governance system

·         DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is governed by a National Council composed largely of lay people. To date, the presidency has been occupied only once by a priest and once by a nun. As for the general management, this role has always been exercised by a layperson.

·         The National Council is the supreme body where all major policy decisions are made, i.e. program  directions for development, education/animation, administration, financial affairs, etc.

However, recent CCCB requirements with respect to the acceptability of projects and partners bypass the democratic principles and practices enshrined in the organization's bylaws.

Of necessity, Development and Peace's activities¹² are coordinated with Southern partners and planned to guarantee both good governance and effectiveness. To question this mode of action for reasons of association (to find ourselves at the same table with organizations, some of whose values we condemn) relegates its work to isolation and decreased effectiveness, if not ineffectiveness, particularly in this era of globalization. The requirement for the prior approval of projects by Southern bishops is counterproductive from two perspectives: 1) it renders program work practically impossible, i.e. action based on collaboration with partners in an articulated strategic approach by reverting to a more ad hoc or piecemeal approach, and 2) it leaves the selection of projects to the discretion of the individual bishop’s opinion, rather than basing it on known, tried, professional, and consistent criteria¹³.

·         The close links between the CCCB and DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE have developed through the presence of two fully vested bishop members of the National Council and the regular meetings between General Management with the General Secretaries and various other bodies that makeup the CCCB. These links have always been frank, cordial and have respected the respective mandates involved.

·         However, the creation of a permanent standing committee within the CCCB, the possibility of the abolition of the two bishop positions on the National Council, and the creation of a National Council committee to dialogue with the CCCB sets up a very different dynamic and changes the nature of Development and Peace's traditional governance links. This new structure is all the more deplorable in that it is akin to creating a trusteeship.

·         As part of its understanding of development and solidarity, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is committed to working with Southern partners. Committees involving Canadian members and at least one Southern partner study and decide on the projects/programs to be supported.

However, the CCCB's recently imposed requirement to examine projects/programs and to make decisions with respect to their funding, or refusal, on this new basis is a major departure from the tradition of democratic functioning.

These are fundamental questions, which need to be brought to the attention of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE staff and members.

Gabrielle Lachance Executive Director (1988‐1996)

September 9, 2011

 

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE A history of tensions between the Bishops/CCCB and D&P

The crisis that is currently affecting DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE in which LifeSiteNews plays a central role did not begin in 2009 but in 2000 with the World March of Women (WMW). In addition, ­almost from its inception‐DEVELOPMENT AND  PEACE has lived through a number of other crises, which while the triggers may have varied focused on essentially the same issues.

1. The 1970s and 1980s

1.1 By the second half of the 1970s DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was already facing violent accusations that risked souring its relationship with the Canadian Episcopacy. The conflict focused on two closely related charges:

      a)DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s alleged financial and political support to armed groups in the South

        b) DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE staffs’ supposed infiltration by a group of militant Marxists.

The accusations originated with an extreme right group (Tradition, Family, Property ‐TFP), which was founded in Brazil in 1960 and maintained one or several Canadian chapters. TFP defined itself as a militant international organization of Catholics in defence of traditional Christian values against the atheistic, immoral and socialist cultural revolution and against the spread of socialist communism that was threatening Christian civilization throughout the World. Around 1978‐79, the Quebec branch of TFP published its Red Book, a pamphlet the title of which approximated “DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE: a Crypto‐Communist organization”. TFP members organized a media campaign against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE timed for immediately before and into the Lenten campaign. They alerted the CCCB to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s supposed deviance and distributed their pamphlet on church steps on Share Lent Sunday. Their campaign was intended to convince the CCCB to withdraw its support from DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and to have parishes across the country boycott the campaign.

Earlier in the 1970s, the English Sector of the organization had been subjected to similar attacks denouncing Development and Peace on the door steps of parishes, particularly in the Archdiocese of Toronto.

The recent LifeSiteNews attack uses essentially the same strategy.

1.2 A number of bishops, particularly Archbishop G. Emmett Carter, of Toronto listened to the critics and convinced the CCCB to intervene. He expressed his doubts about DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s fidelity to the social teachings of the Church, to the point of questioning the faith and morals of a sizeable portion of the staff; another high profile bishop ‐a defender of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE – nonetheless declared that it was important to refuse “to attach the locomotive of D&P to the Marxist Leninist train”. Having called for a review of the organization’s theological stance and educational practices, a major study was undertaken by an expert group in Toronto. The resulting report came to the conclusion that the accusations were ill founded and that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s educational materials and practices did not transgress the faith or morals of the Church, or its social teachings, quite the opposite in fact.

Then as today, a CCCB investigation cleared DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE of any suspicion.

1.3 Despite this, the CCCB pressed for a revision of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s constitution to more explicitly express the Catholic character of the organization, the need for members to adhere to the Gospel as interpreted by the Catholic Bishops, and the requirement to consult Diocesan Bishops on nominations for election to the organization’s National Council. In addition, Development and Peace’s National Council took a number of decisions in this regard at a particularly stormy Council meeting in Newfoundland in 1982, the two most significant being the decisions:

      a)  To expand DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s membership to ensure that the organization could not be  infiltrated  by any  groups, and 

      b)  To publish the Basic Principles and Orientations pamphlet, this would become the   principal  guidebook and practically a charter for DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE.

DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE followed up on the decision to expand the membership by conducting an in depth sociological survey on the existing membership and mounted a serious membership recruitment drive that also gave increased responsibility to the membership. In 5 years time, the active membership grew to 3,000 “active” members, a number that has been maintained to this very day, even if general membership stands at over 12,000. In this same period, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE began to define itself as both an organization / institution, and as a democratic movement.

The actions and attitude of the CCCB at the time speaks to three realities:

• The timidity of most of the bishops in face of accusations by extreme rightwing groups, and their tendency to adopt unjustified control measures in the hope of quieting critics,
•   The bishops’ tendency to allow the position of a few bishops that basically distrusted DEVELOPMENT  AND PEACE to prevail, and
• The temptation of a certain number of bishops to retreat from the ecclesiology of Vatican II and its   social justice perspective.

The reaction of today’s bishops to LifeSiteNews’ accusations is no different than that of the 1970s.

2. The 1980s

Another crisis in the relationship between DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and the CCCB broke out in the 1980s, this time around DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s (anti) militarization campaign. This education/action campaign, which presented the notion of war and the arms trade as an obstacle to development, was based on the 1967 encyclical letter Populorum Progressio, which promoted world peace based on the development of peoples, and particularly on the eradication of poverty and not on arms. In his encyclical, Pope Paul VI carried on from the Vatican Council that had expressly asked that he issue an encyclical furthering the Council’s perspective and detailing appropriate actions to put Vatican II into practice. Paul VI summarized his thoughts in the pithy expression “development is the new name for peace”, from which DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE took its name.



DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s anti‐militarization campaign sparked considerable unease within the Church and with the government. While less acute, this crisis was no less real than those that preceded it. After the discussions with the CCCB on the questions involved, no remedial actions were proposed. However, the Military Vicariate and a few other dioceses did boycott Share Lent for some time. On a separate front, the education/action campaign on militarization did strain the relationship between DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and CIDA, which threatened to cut a part of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s funding, but which in the end limited itself to insisting that CIDA money not be used to produce educational materials, and demanding that this be clearly indicated in the materials themselves.

3. The 2000s

LifeSiteNews launched its first attacks against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE in 2000 around the organization’s support of the World March of Women. LifeSiteNews accused DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE of supporting the right to abortion and groups in the South that support the right to abortion. DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE explained very clearly that the official policy positions of the World March of Women did not include the right to “free choice”, or the right to “reproductive health”, as these two issues that had been relegated to a separate document, which was not part of the official Declaration of the World March of Women. The separate document only enjoyed the support of the groups that had explicitly chosen to sign it. We were equally happy to point out that the World March of Women’s position on the matter was in part due to the influence of Christian groups like DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, which among others had a representative on the World March of Women Coordinating Committee, or to refer to the example of the Vatican in its relationship to the United Nations, where signed agreements include a list of the clauses that the Vatican does not support. Nothing helped. As in earlier cases, LifeSiteNews persevered with its accusations and carried its attacks into Share Lent with the intent of encouraging parishes and dioceses to boycott DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE.

Several Bishops, particularly those in Toronto, Vancouver and Hamilton, shared LifeSiteNews’ position. Quite aside from the goals, strategies and issues being pursued, or the actual actions being taken, they argued that when DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE agreed to sit at the same table as pro‐choice organizations, or any other groups that shared these same views, it was condoning, and at least indirectly supporting, the right to abortion (i.e. guilt by association). More fundamentally, some even insinuated that one should not be surprised that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE would take its distance from the Church’s teaching on life and procreation. At the same time, other bishops took public positions in support of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s involvement in the World March of Women from the perspective of the Church’s declared intent to be the Church in the world, which by definition demands involvement in the melee and in certain circumstances and under certain conditions interaction with groups whose positions the Church does not share. They expressed their confidence in DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s ability for discernment and transparency in such relationships. The CCCB did not intervene against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and the organization could count on the support of the majority of the bishops. However, several dioceses held back Share Lent returns, which they eventually remitted to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, even if the Archdiocese of Toronto did cut its contribution by several hundred thousand dollars.

4. 2010‐2011

The current crisis is fundamentally no different from that of 2000 except in its duration. Relentless in its campaign to discredit Development and Peace, LifeSiteNews has continued its pursuit of the organization’s Southern projects and Canadian education campaigns in an effort to turn up anything that could be misconstrued to create the impression that the organization supports the right to abortion in any way. It is abundantly clear that nothing short of its dismemberment, or the abandonment of the social justice principles incorporated into Development and Peace’s mandate, will satisfy LifeSiteNews.

The latest 2009‐2010 crisis also follows the same trajectory as those of the 1970s and 1980s.

Shaken by the accusations of LifeSiteNews, the CCCB launched its investigation and specifically delegated a fact finding mission to Mexico to examine suspect DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE projects first hand. The mission’s report concluded that LifeSiteNews’ charges were unfounded, but invited DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE to exercise greater caution in its involvements.

However, this did not satisfy LifeSiteNews, or reassure all of the bishops. Among other things, LifeSiteNews accused the delegation to Mexico of having been infiltrated by DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and proclaimed that the report lacked honesty and truthfulness. In short, having already assumed DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE’s guilt as a matter of principle, nothing would change its view.

Four major features distinguish the current crisis from that of the 2000s:

      A greater number of bishops appear to share in LifeSiteNews’ accusations and are prepared to take more draconian measures against DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE,

      Some DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE members, including some in positions of authority, share LifeSiteNews’ perspective,

      The centralization of the debate and dialogue at the top of the hierarchy within DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and we are told the effective silencing of staff,

      The lack of vigour that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE seems prepared to lend to its defence of the organization’s mission, autonomy, and practices.

As it is assumed to be guilty, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE is in effect defenceless in face of these attacks and accusations. As anyone knows, where one can demonstrate that he or she is not guilty of a specific charge, one can never satisfactorily demonstrate that he or she is not guilty of any and all charges that might theoretically be mounted against the person. This is why Western justice systems rely on the presumption of innocence, a presumption that LifeSiteNews and some bishops refuse to allow DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE.

Finally, the CCCB, or its Secretariat, adopted essentially the same response as it did in the 1970s and 1980s that is the instigation of tighter controls over DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE despite the fact that the report cleared DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE of all suspicions. These measures center on:

      The need to have projects DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE intends to support approved by Southern bishops,

      Establishing DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE oversight and control mechanisms within the CCCB itself. What is more, these measures appear to further the Vatican’s intentions with respect to the group of Catholic “charitable” organizations in the world that it intends to rein into a pre‐Vatican II model of Church.

5. The profound issues underlying these crises

5.1 The partial history of the crises and tensions between DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, extreme right‐wing groups, and the episcopate illustrates the enduring nature of certain of the concerns related to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE:

     from the very beginning of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and throughout its history there have been tensions with the CCCB, or with certain bishops able to influence the Conference, tensions that at times have taken on the dimensions of serious crises;

     almost all of these crises follow the same pattern:

• attacks/accusations by the political and/or Christian right;
• a sympathetic opening to such accusations and preparedness to lend credit  and legitimacy  to them on the part of certain bishops and these bishops’ utilization of the situation as a pretext to call DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE into question; 
• the CCCB's unease with conflict and/or desire to calm turmoil;
• investigations exonerating DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE
• despite all, the CCCB's adoption of measures to increase Episcopal controls over DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, asures which by their very nature erode the open, democratic and commitment model of Church institution (DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE), which was created in the wake and spirit of Vatican II.

 

5.2 Clearly, these crises have arisen around specific issues to which the episcopate is particularly sensitive, i.e. armed struggle, socialism, women's rights, abortion. However, it would be unwise to limit oneself to this first level of analysis. The permanent tensions–and thus the resulting crises‐conceal insights and paradoxes that can only be understood by going deeper. These can be regrouped into three categories:

a)    A vision of the world, of the Church and of the relationship between the two, particularly:

     The concrete demands of a vision of the Church as the “people of God” ­DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was specifically conceived of as a project of the entire people of God, and as an opportunity for the involvement of the entire community of God’s people; the composition of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE's membership clearly illustrates these principles. The announcement that the CCCB wants to re‐examine DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE's Constitution to eliminate the two National Council positions filled by bishops, combined with the additional control measures already implemented, or foreseen, signals the  death of this vision of the Church as the People of God;

      The theology of the Signs of the Time (introduced by John XXIII, embraced by Vatican II, and fine‐tuned in the follow‐up dialogue between Paul VI and Cardinal Roy, as the President of the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission), according to which "social movements" are animated by the Spirit and mark the pathway to the Kingdom;

      the exercise of Church authority exemplified in the creation of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE and in giving it its mission and structures that signalled that the CCCB wanted to distance itself from the traditional model, is today very much in question, not only in Canada but throughout the entire Catholic Church.

b)    The demands of the professional involvement and commitment of Christians in development, rights and justice work, beyond but not excluding the witness of charity, and the pedagogy of engagement at the heart of the melee, at the side of community groups, unions etc. once advocated by the CCCB stands threatened.

c)    One can no longer be silent on the role of the laity and on the relationships between the laity and the episcopate, as we just said DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was and remains an occasion for the involvement of the entire people of God, but we must also recognize that having almost always assumed the role of President and always the position of Executive Director, lay people have played and must continue to play a very important and crucial role. While the use of funding to rein in an organization is not new, it may be useful to point out that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was in effect the preferred venue for the involvement of lay Catholic Action leaders, whose funding was almost totally abolished by the bishops during the “Catholic Action crisis” of the 1960s. This fact is obvious in the listing of the many leaders that came to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE out of the Catholic Action movements, i.e. Maione, Tremblay, Champagne, Gauthier, Johnston, Flynn, etc. to people the organization’s initial years.

Is the CCCB prepared to engage in an open dialogue with DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE on the issues involved, rather than opting for unilateral action? Is DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE prepared to truly “engage in dialogue” with the bishops, rather than accepting its demise too quickly?

Fabien Leboeuf Executive Director from 1996‐2001

September 9, 2011

Letter to Bishops from the Union of D&P Employees

2011 October 13 th

Your Grace,

Next week, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops will hold its Plenary Assembly. We

understand that during this time you will discuss the incidents that have shaken Development and Peace over these last few months and will establish some guidelines to address them. I am taking this opportunity to write to you as representative of the Development and Peace staff so that we may express our concerns for our organization. Development and Peace is more than a job for us ; it is where we live out our commitment to social justice. We are writing to you today first and foremost because we hold Development and Peace, which we consider to be a jewel of the Canadian Catholic Church, very close to our hearts.

Staff at Development and Peace are very fearful as we look to the future. Over these last few years, the repeated attacks to which we have been subjected have destabilized Development and Peace in a number of ways. These unfounded allegations have shaken the confidence of many of the faithful and have made life very difficult for our members, the clergy who support our work, and of course, the staff. In order to continue the work of Development and Peace at the local level, the members and staff need the Canadian bishops to clearly and publicly state their support for our organization. Without this support, it will not be possible to carry on with our work.

These baseless allegations have also led to the implementation of several measures that are already having a major impact on the work and on the very mission of Development and Peace. For example, it is becoming more and more difficult for our partner organizations to collaborate or to work in networks with other organizations. In the ‘virtual’ world where one does not need proof in order to make accusations and to be believed, we fear that every time we want to work with other organizations, we risk being accused of something ‘by association’. Yet, we need to work in networks or in collaboration with other organizations on issues that are too broad or complex for one single organization to address. Corporate Social Responsibility is an example of such an issue and one that is at the root of many key development issues today. To stop networking with other organizations on questions of Corporate Social Responsibility would condemn Development and Peace to addressing only the symptoms of problems, rather than their causes. Such an attitude would be completely contrary to our mission.

Consequently, we no longer dare to speak out about the excellent work of our partners in the Global South. We are worried that by doing so, we will expose them to unjustified attacks. The case of PRODH of Mexico is a tragic illustration of the impact that these attacks can have on our partners. How can we speak out about the alternatives that our partners are proposing, about the dignity of the people who are bringing about change if we can’t name them ? How can we carry out effective education for international solidarity in the North if we can’t highlight the accomplishments of our partners? Would this not deny a fundamental dimension of the mission of Development and Peace ?

We have close relationships with several Churches in the South, where the latter are committed to the people, to the poor, to enacting justice and working for change. While our partners have clearly made the preferential option for the poor, not all bishops or bishops’ conferences have done so. Regrettably the official Church in some countries does not always take a stand against corruption, authoritarian regimes, violence or impunity. This is why we feared that each partner might be obliged to provide a letter of support from a local bishop in order to maintain support from Development and Peace.

What might have been the fate of partners working in these countries ? Could our partners, who often decry such situations, have obtained the support of their bishops? This, without taking into account that the mission of Development and Peace also includes working with non‐Catholic communities and in countries where church structures are almost non‐existent.

Happily, the recent joint statement by the CCCB and Development and Peace suggests to us that collaboration with local Churches will be desirable without becoming a formal requirement. Were it to become a requirement, it could have grave consequences, and seriously hamper our mission. We hope to soon receive clear guidelines on this issue, guidelines that will reflect the positions taken by the National Council.

We are also fearful about the real space given to members of Development and Peace. Since its creation our movement has been a democratic one, driven mainly by lay people, as was the wish of the founding bishops. We, the unionized staff, have witnessed a certain reduction of democratic spaces within the organization. For the last few months, in view of the urgent nature of the crisis, members, who are the heart of Development and Peace, have been increasingly relegated to the sidelines in decisions taken on issues that are crucial to the future of the organization. The National Council, even though it is the main decision‐making body, remained on the outside of the debate for several weeks. Development and Peace is at a major crossroads, the outcome of which is being decided in the offices of General Management, at the table of the Standing Committee put in place by the CCCB, and at the Development and Peace Liaison Committee. The majority of members are not participating in these key decisions. We hope that they provide material for further reflection and discussion Nonetheless, the commitment of lay people to solidarity and our democratic structures are key issues for Development and Peace. The concerns that we share with you today were communicated to the National Council last June. 

We offer these reflections, Your Grace, in a spirit of solidarity,

Marcelle Sinclair, president,

Union of employees of Development and Peace

 

Support Father Raymond Gravel in his lawsuit against LifeSite News.

Father Raymond Gravel is prosecuting Life Site News for its irresponsible and hateful campaign to destroy him and ruin his reputation. This Quebec priest, who is a strong supporter of Development and Peace, is urgently in need of funds to allow his case of libel, scorn and incitement to hatred to advance in the Quebec courts. See National Post (link) story on this.

If he wins his lawsuit for $500,000 civil damages, Father Gravel is willing to donate a significant amount to Development and Peace.

The hate campaign by this same web site against Development and Peace and its unfounded and inflammatory allegations against the organization launched the controversy that led to the defunding by D&P of Mexican human rights organization PRODH. A win for Father Gravel in this case would be a significant victory in the battle against such hate speech and poorly argued malicious attacks against Catholic social teaching that are the central focus of these blogs.

Father Gravel has been the object of vilification by LifeSitenews.com because of the questions he has raised on Catholic Church teachings on sexuality, for his ministry with the gay community in Montreal’s gay village and for his defense of women’s rights.

He writes on his blog:

“Many people cannot understand how a priest who preaches the Gospel can sue a catholic organization. For nearly eight years now, several defamatory articles about me have been published on this site and have served to misinform the population at large about me. On several occasions, I have sent them articles written by me, translated into English to allow them to correct the misinformation. They have never done this. On the contrary, they have urged people to write letters of condemnation about me to my religious authorities, including my Bishop, going as far as the Vatican, by writing to the Papal Nuncio in Ottawa. This site is widely consulted by Christians in English Canada and in the US. I receive hundreds of emails, and letters, all of them insulting, and I am the object of continual harassment from catholic readers of this site.

…I therefore decided to try a libel lawsuit in order to reestablish justice and shed light on the truth regarding who I am.

It is true that the Gospel calls us to forgiveness and to mercy and love. I do not question these gospel values. Does Jesus not say, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice: theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew, 5: 10.) ? We must therefore understand that if some have been persecuted for the sake of justice, it is no doubt because they have fought for justice, if not, they would never have been persecuted…

I believe sincerely in forgiveness, mercy and unconditional love. However, this is no way cancels out the duty we have to restore justice and unveil the truth. It is a question of dignity, as when this is trampled on, we have to do everything we can to restore it.

I thank all those who have supported me in this ordeal. Some have wished to make a financial contribution to my lawsuit. If you would like to make a donation, click on the following link: http://www.raymondgravel.com/
or please send a cheque to the following address:
Raymond Gravel
11,200 boul Pie IX
CP 129
Montreal
Quebec H1H 5L2

My sincere thanks,

Father Raymond Gravel
Diocese of Joliette
Chaplain of Montreal firefighters and Laval police officers

Mexican human rights center weathers challenges to its advocacy work

By David Agren
Catholic News Service

MEXICO CITY (CNS) -- Jacinta Francisco Marcial sold ice cream in the state of Queretaro until she was accused in 2006 of kidnapping six federal agents who were searching for illegal merchandise.

Marcial, an indigenous Otomi and unable to speak Spanish, spent three years in prison until lawyers from the Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Human Rights Center, also known as Centro Pro, assumed her case, which eventually became a national scandal. Mexico's Office of the Attorney General finally dropped the case in September 2009.

Centro Pro has won fame for defending the poor and oppressed, wading into difficult land disputes and confronting impunity -- all in a country with a less-than-transparent legal system and frequent abuses of power.

The center's work has won awards. The Mexico City legislative assembly, for one, cited the Centro Pro for its work on behalf of Marcial.

But with the fame and awards have come controversy. The Archdiocese of Mexico City and foreign critics have charged that Centro Pro improperly associated itself with groups working to decriminalize abortion and implement same-sex marriage laws.

The accusations, made in a letter signed by Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City, prompted the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, the charitable arm of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, to drop funding for Centro Pro earlier this year.

The controversy once again highlights the conundrum of how Catholics should support foreign groups, including those that might occasionally work on broader human rights issues with groups openly in favor of public policies that go against church teachings.

It also points to the tensions in Mexico between the country's most senior prelates and human rights groups.

Jesuit Father Jose Rosario Marroquin, Centro Pro's director, recognizes the controversies courted by one of the Mexico's oldest and best known human rights groups and acknowledges the discomfort it has caused for some Catholic leaders who have preferred not to antagonize the federal government since relations between Mexico and the Vatican were restored in 1992.

"It's never done classic, religious work. Centro Pro speaks against the military. Centro Pro speaks of the justice system," Father Marroquin told Catholic News Service.

It also counts on support from many Catholics within Mexico.

"The position of the archdiocese is different from the bishops' conference," he said.

"With the bishops, we participate in the social ministry ... they invite us to events, they invite us to give our opinions."

The most recent controversies involving Centro Pro began with the award for defending Marcial, Father Marroquin said.

Centro Pro was honored last year, along with Catholics for the Right to Decide, an organization the Mexico City Archdiocese said is non-Catholic. A photo of the group's representatives -- including the then-Centro Pro director, Jesuit Father Luis Arriaga -- was taken as part of the ceremony. The website LifeSiteNews.com cited the photo earlier this year as an improper association made by Centro Pro.

Excerpts of Cardinal Rivera's letter, published in the Catholic Register in Canada, accused Centro Pro of promoting pro-abortion groups.

The photo and accusations were not Centro Pro's first brushes with controversy. Centro Pro participated with more than 100 non-governmental groups in crafting a 10-page report for Mexico's 2009 human rights evaluation by the United Nations, Father Marroquin said.

Critics said some of the authors had promoted a Mexico City law decriminalizing abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Father Marroquin said the human rights report required a cooperative effort between groups with disparate viewpoints, and the final document made no mention of abortion.

"It was worth the effort to coordinate ourselves and present just one report with our points of view on human rights," Father Marroquin said.

"We worked on what we had seen and what we knew: the military, public security, the justice system and some things about the development of mega projects."

Development and Peace investigated the matter in 2009 and found no wrongdoing. The posture was reversed earlier this year after the publication of Cardinal Rivera's letter.

Father Hugo Valdemar Romero, spokesman for the Mexico City Archdiocese, said Catholic groups cannot "play a double game" by working with others whose work violates church teachings. Accepting an award alongside such groups also was unacceptable, he said.

"I know that the cardinal has received many letters from Catholics scandalized by this matter," he said.

The withdrawal of support from Development and Peace will not affect Centro Pro's ability to handle complex and controversial cases, Father Marroquin said, although it will require taking some austerity measures.

Controversy, Father Marroquin said, has been frequent for Centro Pro since its founding by Jesuits in the late 1980s, especially for its defense of suspects accused of offenses pertaining to the Zapatista uprising of the mid 1990s. It was a position unpopular with many bishops.

A more recent case focused on farmers in Guerrero state, who fought back against logging companies illegally harvesting trees on their land.

The farmers, Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel, were detained by the military in a 1999 raid, tortured, charged with weapons offenses and imprisoned. The men were released on humanitarian grounds in 2001, but, with help of Centro Pro lawyers, the case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the farmers won.

"Without the help of (Centro Pro), he would still be in prison for something he didn't do," Cabrera's wife, Ubalda Cortes, said at a June 21 event held by the Interior Ministry to mark Mexico's acceptance of the decision.

"They were with us ... from the beginning."