On Monday August 15th, one of my readers contacted the chancery and asked who was responsible for the way the second collection was announced. She reached the office of Ms. Chieko Scheve, the new archdiocesan Director of Communications (who replaced Susan Gibbs, who had retired from her position). She replied that the decision was that of Anthony Bosnick, who is both head of the Archdiocesan Legislative Network and of the Archdiocese Parish Social Ministry. She also mentioned that the collection was meant to be a combination of two collections, that of the Catholic Communications Campaign and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
Well, now we have a new set of questions.
- If the August 13-14 second collection was intended to be a combination of two collections, why was that intention not explicitly disclosed to the parishioners in the pew? What was announced this past Sunday was a collection for "Catholic communications and human development". To the unsuspecting ear, it sounds like one entity. The word "Catholic" is mentioned only once; the word "Campaign" is omitted altogether.
- The actual envelope was designated as "Catholic Communication Human Development". No hint of combination with another collection here! The conjunctive "and" was missing. What drove the selection of this particular phrasology? If there would have been a convenient way to explicitly state that this collection was for two entities, the envelope would have been the perfect means.
- Assuming that this past collection was really for two organizations, how will the collection proceeds be divided between the two? What individuals are overseeing the allocation of funds? Why was no option offered to the donors to specify how they wanted their donation dollars to be allocated? Given that the CCHD has garnered well-deserved criticism, I think it was unethical not to give the parishioner the option to divert his/her hard-earned money from that very jaded organization.