Here is an example from this year's round (published yesterday in the Sussex local, the "Argus"): No Red Nose Day at school
The argument about Red Nose Day has been running in the UK for several years now. This Catholic News Agency Report sums up the debate that reached an impasse a couple of years ago.
Comic Relief insists that it does not give money to "fund abortions." But time and again it turns out that it supports agencies that promote such things as "reproductive health care" which is code for ...
Here is part of the statement from "a spokeswoman" for comic relief as quoted in the Argus:
"Our funding in Africa goes to all kinds of projects - providing education, rehabilitating child soldiers, peace-building, fair trade, supporting street children and disabled people and a range of other work helping people in Africa to turn their lives around. A small percentage goes to projects with a family planning component.Carefully worded there: "none of the money"is used to support abortion, not "none of the organisations or projects" support abortion. It would be surprising if "projects with a family planning component" did not support this aspect of "reproductive health care."
We support this work because of the important contribution it can make to the health of children and families and to the empowerment of women in Africa, especially in the light of the terrible effects of HIV and AIDS across much of the continent. None of the money we have allocated as grants has been used to support abortions."
The "small percentage" has been given in the past as 3%. Last year, Comic Relief raised £65 million so we are talking about £1.95 million going to "projects with a family planning component."
9 comments:
That's the trouble with the Catholic press. You get stories headlined, "Meany Catholic Schools Spoil Little Children's Charity Fun" and you get bland disclaimers full of boring Vaticanese in media releases from the bishops conference (I hope) that no one is going to read and get a footnote at the bottom of the story.
What the Catholic Press should be doing, if there were one, is running its own headlines like, "British Charity Raising Funds for African Baby-Killing - 1.95 Million this year alone!"
Sheesh. Nobody knows how to do it right.
When are the English Catholics going to take off the white gloves and stop pretending that everyone would be their buddy if only they could be nice and meek enough?!
Hey English!
Better start fighting back while you still CAN!!
Besides the dubious morality of many of the projects supported by the Comic Relief industry, I object to the sight of disgustingly
wealthy "celebrities" flying around the world (at what cost to the environment?) to look at poverty and then telling the rest of us, who might just earn in a year the amount they receive in interest on their wealth in a month, to dig deep into our pockets to support their pet charities.
It seems that nowadays the vast majority of the Great British Public are incapable of giving to any charity without someone being sponsored for doing something stupid in a bath of (low salt, low sugar, ideologically sound) baked beans or goaded into giving by so-called "celebrities".
I said all this to the red nosed yoof this evening as he brandished his red bucket before me when I dashed into the local grocer's to buy a quart of semi-skimmed. Poor lad looked quite crestfallen!
So Comic Relief allocate their funds on a percentage basis? Presumably then, more money for Comic Relief as a whole means more money for the 3% of "reproductive healthcare providers". As I understand it, the bishops say it's OK to give to Comic Relief because there's a get-out clause allowing groups to specify that the money they raise doesn't go to things they don't like. But if the money is distributed on a percentage basis then it's a meaningless concession. Have I missed something here?
Really, Father? It didn't take much research to find out the agenda of some of the orgnaisations involved.
Cash In Action.
http://www.comicrelief.com/cash-in-action/
Take One World Action (OWA) - given a wopping £637,054 by Comic Relief. Google them and search for documentssuch as this:
Women as Citizens.
Advocacy on the decriminalisation of
abortion based on the right of each
woman to take decisions about her own body as well as arguments based on public health and social justice.
Hardly pro life, is it?
To make one realise that one is not a miserable curmudgeon by not falling for the Red Nose Day stuff try Rod Liddle in last week's Spectator (requires registration)
Red Nose Day Is A Bullying Smugfest.
It's fine for Catholics to 'opt-out' of giving money to Comic Relief, after all they are merely standing up for what they believe in. But why then complain when critisised about it?
I have been reading through your Catholic blogs and have picked up on the radical 'traditionalism' of it all. I have been able to go with the whole 'anti liberal' stance but the vehermence of the anti red nose thing is just too much for me - I'm bailing out.
Thanks, Paulinus. I did search on a few of those in the "Cash in Action" section - the size of grants given to NGOs is stunning.
A large chunk (or perhaps the whole) of Rod Liddle's piece has been copiesd to this post in the New English Review.
I have been able to go with the whole 'anti liberal' stance but the vehermence of the anti red nose thing is just too much for me - I'm bailing out.
Oh for crying out loud anonymous, grow up! We're talking about funding organisations that promote abortion. We have a bounden duty to stand up for what we believe in or we are moral cowards. Sponsoring abortion doesn't become any nicer because Lenny Henry is doing it with a piece of red foam on his schnoz.
The only relief about Comic Relief is that it'll be over for another year...
Post a Comment