What is ironic is that if EVERYONE began to use this logic being applied here, (that being that those who give money to organizations that do a lot of good in the world, but have one or two things we disagree with, we must stop giving to said organization hence we be seen or become guilty of the thing we disagree with) the Church itself would be filing bankruptcy within the year, and within 5 years there would be NO Catholic Church. Period!
I say that because yes the Church does a lot of good in the world, of course it also does many great evils, evils that Christ said would be better to have those who commit said sins cast into the sea with heavy rocks tied to them) BTW I do exempt Orthodoxy from these evils either, as I know full well we have the same problem.
I honestly find this decision to be absurd to such an extreme, I really cannot even wrap my mind around. The fact that they are not participating in a Catholic charity is even more mind boggling to me. The rationalization that "well we will do just as much good for the poor without this charity" sounds nice, but is it true? I suppose only time will tell. And they may be proven right. But it just really, really sounds awful. And it's going to come across as awful. Would it not have been better to get another charity up and running for say 5 or 10 years and then pull out of the charity one disagrees with? It seems that in this case it's a knee jerk political based reaction, they pull out, and THEN might create an upstart organization with zero track record, all because someone who worked for the charity MIGHT work for an organization who might support abortion? If all these mights and maybes are enough to pull one's money, what does that say of the Church itself, where as I said, applying the same logic to it, would require us all to immediately stop giving money on Sundays.
This reminds me of the "classic" argument used by many people I've known in my life that have said, "Oh I don't give money to charities because so much of it gets wasted!" True indeed, but even if only 5% gets to those funds get to those who need it, is it not worth it? I think it is, but maybe that's because I've been on, and have had friends on the side of things that needed the help. In the end I think there were far better ways to handle this than the way they did. Their conviction and honestly is admirable, but I think their administration and practical skills are just, well not that good. But that's just my opinion.