"THE CHURCH MUST ALWAYS BE UNAMBIGUOUSLY PRO-LIFE."

Bernard Cardinal Law, May 8, 2000

(what part of "unambiguous" does Catholic Charities not understand?)

May 8, 2000. The funeral of John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, drew thousands to Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. And thanks to nationwide coverage, millions more watched and listened and participated in a celebration of thanksgiving to God for this indomitable priest.

At one point, Cardinal O’Connor’s hand-picked homilist, Bernard Cardinal Law, reminded the faithful of Cardinal O'Connor's "constant reminder that the church must always be unambiguously pro-life."

The homily was immediately interrupted by nearly two solid minutes of enthusiastic applause, followed by a one-minute long standing ovation...a thunder that seemed to rock the very foundations of the 120-year-old cathedral. While the attendees were still standing, Cardinal Law quipped: "I see he [Cardinal O’Connor] hasn’t left the pulpit."

It’s a moment I’ll never forget...and I’ll never cease thanking God for my Cardinal Archbishop’s unequivocally outspoken defense of the unborn.

Flash forward to February 27, 2000

An e-mail from a pal in Oklahoma City begins with: "Hey Kelly, What's next in Boston? Whew!" Attached was an article from a news source I’d never heard of, claiming that an employee of Catholic Charities in Boston was a volunteer at Planned Parenthood...the euphemistic name for the most prolific abortion industry in the country, if not the world.

Groaning inwardly — thinking "when will The Media leave us alone?" — I fired back a response: "That’s utterly ridiculous!"

To prove my friend was way off base, I called the Catholic Charities office where the "alleged" Planned Parenthood volunteer was assigned. Here’s how the conversation went:

CC Person: "Catholic Charities, may I help you?"

Me: "Hello, my name is Kelly Clark. Does Howard Brown work there?"

CC Person: "Yes, he does."

Hmmm...this wasn’t the answer I was hoping for. But still, there must, I reasoned, be some misunderstanding.

Me: "Oh. Well, you can probably help me out. I heard — and I’m sure this information is not true — that your Howard Brown is the same Howard Brown who escorts women into Planned Parenthood. That’s not true, is it?

CC Person: "We’re not allowed to divulge that information."

Me: (taken aback) "But...but...can’t you just tell me...

CC Person: [click.]

How is this "unambiguous?"

It isn’t. An "unambiguously pro-life" response would be something like: "Planned Parenthood? Of course not! This is Catholic Charities! Why would anybody think that any Catholic Charities employee would have anything to do with Planned Parenthood for crying out loud!" Okay, maybe not everybody actually talks in italics the way I do, but you get my point. "We’re not allowed to divulge that information" wasn’t an answer.

Actually, maybe it was an answer. Yikes.

From the front office...

Okay, so at this point I’m still thinking that there must be some rational, logical explanation. Like, maybe the receptionist was a trainee, or was having a bad hair day, something like that. So I e-mailed Maureen March, Director of Communications for Catholic Charities, inquiring about the — to my mind, still improbable — employ of Planned Parenthood escort Howard Brown. I received the following reply:

"Employees of Catholic Charities are hired on the basis of their skills and relevant experience and evaluated based on their job performance. Because Catholic Charities adheres to non-discriminatory hiring practices as required by law of any corporation, we do not discriminate based on age, race, sexual orientation or religion."

Excuse me? I ask about a guy — the Catholic Charities Director of Counseling, for heaven’s sakes — possibly moonlighting at an abortion mill and I get a boiler-plate response on fair hiring practices? Ambiguouser and ambiguouser.

So I decided, what the heck, I’ll take it to the top. I wrote Dr. Joseph Doolin, Catholic Charities president, and followed up with a phone call. His assistant answered...a very pleasant lady.

Me: "Hello, this is Kelly Clark. May I speak to Dr. Doolin please?

She: "What is this in regards to, please?"

Me: "Well, I’m just following up on a letter I sent him, and...

She: "Is this about Howard Brown?"

Me: "Gee, as a matter of fact it is, and maybe...

She: "Then Dr. Doolin would like you to deal with Maureen March, our Director of Communications.

Me: "I did that already, but I really didn’t get much of a response. See...

She: "I can report your dissatisfaction to Dr. Doolin, if you’d like."

Me: "Uh...well, okay I guess, if that’s the best you can do.

She: "It is. I’ll tell Dr. Doolin that you are not satisfied with Ms. March’s...

Me: "Wait, that’s not what I meant...oh, well, never mind. Have, uh, a good day."

A sea of ambiguity

Now I knew what Alice felt like while confronting the Red Queen. Nothing made sense, except what I now know to be true: the Director of Counseling Services for Catholic Charities also helps facilitate abortions. As my Oklahoma pal aptly wrote (and, as I now realize, in devastating understatement): "Whew."

So what’s your point, Kelly?

Good question. I’ll tell you what’s not my point. I’m not condemning anybody here. I have no clue as to what it takes to run a multi-million dollar organization — an organization that, outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts itself, spends more on helping people in need than any other organization in the state. I’m sure the extracurricular activities of Howard Brown came as much as a shock to the Catholic Charities family as it did to me...and as I hope it does to you.

I’m not condemning Howard Brown either...I’ve said it before: I’m the biggest sinner I know. Who am I to condemn another? I unambiguously condemn his Planned Parenthood affiliation, of course. In these times of abundant — and necessary — discussion regarding the protection of our kids, it bears repeating: abortion represents the very epitome of child abuse.

Without question, Catholic Charities leadership and staff are well-intentioned, competent folks, with a single-eyed determination to continue to provide quality social services in keeping with its century-old tradition.

With escalating costs of providing these services, the threat of potential litigation, more negative publicity (and never mind providing those espousing the moral legitimacy of abortion with a new poster boy) has me guessing that Catholic Charities thinks it’s between the proverbial rock and hard place. An ambiguous position, indeed. That’s the problem. And that’s my point.

Let’s be unambiguous about the pro-life ethic. Please.

Again, I don’t pretend to be an expert at Archdiocesan matters. I’m also not an attorney, publicity expert, theologian, social worker, and certainly not a saint. My vantage point is from the pew. To my mind, this really, really, painful situation could have been diffused with just two words by somebody in charge — "You. Out!" — but that’s just my opinion.

The lesson here, I believe, is that no matter how the clouds of scandal, lawsuits, revelations, and, yes, misinformation envelop us, we as Church, as the Body of Christ, simply cannot afford to be anything but crystal clear in our private and public articulation of the pro-life ethic. Under any circumstances. Sometimes — often — this is hard. Life is hard. So we’ve got to pray harder. And speak out firmly and articulately for the reverence of all human life.

Easy for the lady in the pew to say, I know. Maybe not so easy for the Catholic Charities folks. In that case, they deserve the prayers of everybody in the pews.

Bottom line: we must accept the responsibility — no, the privilege — to forever and without hesitation preach the Gospel of Life.

Unambiguously.

Next week: Where is God taking us in this latest challenge?