from church collection plates as well, inrnparticular from the Roman CatholicrnChurch’s Campaign for Human Developmentrn(CHD). As a Catholic, I havernlong opposed this quack organizationrntied to the nihilist 60’s and supported bvrnthe “second collection” at Mass, wherernbaskets are passed to gullible worshipersrnostensibly for support of “the poor.”rnLast August more than 2,000 activistsrngathered at the elegant Hvatt RegencyrnChicago to celebrate the 25th anniversaryrnof their money tree, the CHD.rnSupported by a church which ostensiblyrninsists that homosexual espousal is arngrave sin was a gay and lesbian rights organization,rnGrassroots Leadership, arnCHD-funded organization from NorthrnCarolina. CHD provided, through therncollection baskets, $25,000 to this organization,rnwhich according to its ownrnliterature is pledged to work “closely withrn. . . all major southern movements andrnorganizations, including civil rights,rnwomen, labor, lesbian and gay, environment,rnpeace and religious action.”rnLast October, Terrence Scanlon, thernCatholic president of the Capital ResearchrnCenter, addressed a joint meetingrnin Chicago of Business Executives forrnEconomic Justice and the City Club ofrnChicago. A nephew of Mike Mansfield,rnthe former Senate Democratic majorit)rnleader, Scanlon was special assistant tornboth Presidents John Kennedy and LyndonrnJohnson. He worked for me in thernLIBERAL ARTSrnOF THE MAKING OFrnBOOKS, THERErnIS NO END . . .rn”The Reading List is, it must confess,rntired. Week after week, coming uprnwith book after book, and trying liardrnnot to make too many mistakes hasrntaken a toll. . . . In only a few days, itrnhas received several missives… pointingrnout that we purposely misidcntifiedrnthe author of Medea last week.rnIt’s Euripides, not Aeschylus.”rn—The Weekly Standard,rnFebruary 19, 1996rnOffice of Minority Business Enterprise ofrnthe Commerce Department, which Irncreated in the Nixon administration, laterrnserving as Ronald Reagan’s Chairmanrnof the Consumer Product Safety Commissionrnand a vice president of the HeritagernFoundation. Today, Scanlon is notrnonly a compassionate conservative but arnhighly regarded leader of the pro-lifernmovement. I reported on his critique ofrncorporate and social philanthropy in myrnSun-Times column, dwelling on the excessesrnof the CHD.rnInto the meeting strode an emissary ofrnJoseph Cardinal Bernardin, an architectrnof the CHD, the Reverend RaymondrnBaumhart, S.J., former president of Loyolarnllniversitv in Chicago. As a newlyrnnamed employee of Bernardin’s archdiocese,rnin the elegantly named Officernof Evangelization and Christian Life,rnBaumhart stirred uneasily because muchrnof what Scanlon said was directed to alleviatingrnpoverty and injustice. But afterrnScanlon’s remarks, Baumhart obedientlyrnread his archdiocesan’s approved statementrnin much the same way that oldrnguard clerics were obliged to do on key issuesrnprior to Vatican II.rn”The cardinal is disappointed and distressed,”rnread Baumhart, “by the reportrnof Terrence Scanlon and the use of somernof these allegations by Tom Rocser in hisrnSun-Times column recently.” He acknowledgedrnthat occasionally there wererngranting mistakes, but that by and largernCHD reflected the mandate of Christ tornminister to unfortunates. Moreover, accordingrnto Bernardin, the Scanlon reportrnwas “filled with inaccuracies.” Wernleaned forward expectantly to hear fromrnBaumhart what we had gotten wrong.rnBut now it was our turn to be disappointed.rnFather Baumhart didn’t say.rnScanlon replied that he had sent his critiquernto all the Catholic bishops, had receivedrnsome praise, some generalizedrndisapproval, but not a word of refutation.rnWould Baumhart refute, for example,rnwhat Cornell West, a professor of religionrnand African-American Studies atrnHarvard, had told the CHD?rnAnytime you talk about poverty inrnAmerica, vou also have to come tornterms with the pernicious and viciousrnlegacN’ of White Supremacyrn. . . and you begin to hit up againstrnissues of patriarchy, insubordination,rnand wealth… . There’s no seriousrntalk about the fact that onernpercent of the population owns 48rnpercent of the financial wealthrn[which is] oligarchic, plutocraticrn.. . pigmentocratic. . . . The ultimaternlogic of a market economy isrnthe gansterization of culture [linkingrnthe free market with] homophobia,rnkeeping trapped the unityrnof gay brothers and lesbian sisters.rnFather Baumhart adamantly declined tornbe specific—as did his staff. The meetingrnadjourned showing the two sides ofrnwhat in Bernardin’s Chicago has been arnnear schismatic church, with a prelaternwho continues to endorse the CHD.rnAmid the welter of pro-gay and abortionrnrights advocacy at the Hvatt Regency,rnFather Baumhart (under whose leadershiprnLoyola University set aside separaterndays for the celebration of gay rights literature)rnappeared to give it full sanction.rnTo critics of CHD, all he would say is:rn”Get a life!”rnBut perhaps there is hope. If leadersrnlike Cardinal Bernardin cannot be oustedrnbecause of the linear, hierarchicalrnnature of the Catholic Church, the directionrnof corporate giving can bernchanged. As Scanlon made clear, leadingrndispensers of funds to anticapitalistrnand cultural left causes are Ford,rnChrysler, Exxon, AT&T, Aetna, Nynex,rnPrimerica, and Monsanto, and stockholdersrnin these corporations with stakesrnin an economy that could be affected byrnleftist groups could exert their power.rnRecent grairts from the MacArthurrnFoundation are telling signs of the philanthropicrntimes. Under President AdelernSmith Simmons, for example, the foundationrnhas awarded $100,000 to a juvenilernjustice reform project headed byrnBernardine Dohrn, who in the 1960’srnserved with the Weather Undergroundrnand once even declared war on the UnitedrnStates. At a public meeting beforernshe fled to the Underground, she applaudedrnCharles Manson’s murder ofrnSharon Tate as the height of revolutionaryrndaring.rnLike Dohrn, Simmons is a revolutionary,rnbut she prefers to take her swipes,rnlike many CHD recipients, at thernCatholic Church. For instance, Simmonsrnlavishly funds a group calledrnCatholics for Free Choice, which is neitherrnCatholic nor supportive of anyrnchoice except abortion. In any event,rnMs. Simmons utilizes much of thernMacArthur Foundation’s money to pushrnabortion, which gives a whole differentrnand poignant meaning to Baumhart’srn42/CHRONICLESrnrnrn