Habitat MOU

From: Easter Group <eastergroup@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 10:52:58 AM
Subject: The Overstretch in the Habitat-Pfizer-CFCI Alleged Connection: A Case of Ill-logic

It was one of those things we could have passed up as a nuisance blog, and therefore, not worthy of a reply. But the frequency and intensity of the CFC Global bloggers' repeated mention of the " hypocricy of CFCFI" because it signed an MOC (Memorandum of Cooperation) with Habitat which has once partnered with Pfizer made us believe, with amazement, how the bounds of logic can be violated and twisted to the extent that CFC Global bloggers really feel they are right and therefore make sense.

The classical philosophers must be turning and spinning in their graves to hear that since Habitat has partnered with Pfizer and CFCFI has signed an MOC with Habitat, therefore, CFCFI is being hypocritical because it criticized CFC Global/GK's partnership with Pfizer, which manufactures and sells contraceptives---an act which the Church considers morally wrong.

This rather misplaced syllogism carries it too far. Let us examine this overdrive closely:

1. In the first place, the MOC is between Habitat and CFCFI. CFCFI is not partnering at all with Pfizer.

2. Indeed, at the very beginning in 1999, Habitat partnered with Pfizer in the United States once.

3. However, even in USA, each Habitat organization exists as a separate juridical entity. For Instance, Habitat Florida recently turned down a sizeable lot donation by the Planned Parenthood Organization (a known pro-choice entity) because the proposed donor espouses values contrary to Habitat.

4. In the Philippines, however, Pfizer partnered with CFC Global/GK. Why is CFCFI now being faulted for signing an MOC with Habitat in the Philippines when the latter has no links whatsoever with Pfizer in the Philippines?

5. Now, we have to find out why the Church, through the late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez-Trujillo, made a ruling that prohibits CFC Global/GK from partnering (or to stop the partnership to be more precise) with Pfizer. It is important to understand first that GK is part and parcel of CFC Global. CFC Global, per its statutes, submits itself to the jurisdiction and authority of the Church which considers such partnerships as morally wrong. CFC Global, including GK therefore, cannot be dissociated with the Church. If GK were a stand-alone organization and functions as an NGO, then the Church would not have issued such a prohibition because it will then have no authority at all over GK.

6. Premises considered, let us look closely at the wisdom behind the Church's prohibition by quoting directly from the late Cardinal's letter to wit:

6.1 "The funds offered also come from actions that are morally evil, abortion and contraception." Now, Habitat for Humanity Philippines, the party we are cooperating with, has not partnered with Pfizer. Hence, there is no question whatsoever that Habitat Philippines' sourcing of funds does not come at all from the coffers of Pfizer. Even in the MOC, if funds are sourced by CFCFI and Habitat helps in the build, it goes without saying that CFCFI will not source funds coming from Pfizer. On the other hand, if Habitat happens to source the funds, it also knows that it cannot source funds from Pfizer because CFCFI will reject it anyway.

6.2 " In their advertisements and promotional materials, these companies could say that they help the Catholic Church, and thus give the false idea that their contraceptive and abortion-causing products and services are acceptable." We have said earlier that since CFC is a Catholic organization (and since GK is a CFC pillar and activity), the good Cardinal equates giving to CFC Global/GK as if it directly gives to the Church. Thus, the danger the Church would like to avoid is giving the impression that it accepts donations from Pfizer.

6.3 In the case of CFCFI having an MOC ( it is not even a partnership because both parties are free to collaborate or not to) with Habitat Philippines, could Pfizer now claim in their ads and promo materials that it has given funds to CFCFI?

7. The distinction should also be made that the Church prohibits the partnership with respect to a specific context --- that of Pfizer happening to make and sell products and services which it considers morally wrong. For instance, it does not necessarily follow that Catholics cannot purchase or buy Pfizer products that are life-giving. But what the Church equally stresses is it would like to avoid Pfizer practising a philosophy of compensating philanthropy by claiming that because it helps save lives, it absolves the company from killing millions of unborn children through contraception and abortion. Stretching the same context, should we tell all Catholics to stop using the services of Philippine General Hospital because one of its donors happens to be Pfizer?

It is unfortunate that CFC Global/GK has taken the Church pronouncement out of context again. And we now have to play the role anew of correcting a serious flaw that not only maligns the use of simple logic, but more importantly, the Church and CFCFI.

As we stated earlier, we just would have wanted to move on and ignore this issue. Regrettably, we are again unnecessarily drawn to what is essentially a non-issue.

When blazing guns and loose cannons refused to be silenced, peace and harmony become very elusive.

CFCFI/CFCFFL
August 28, 2008