Sunday, November 16, 2008

The CMA is taking a hit at Holy Cross

Today's bulletin seems to confirm what many had expected might happen: The 2008-09 CMA drive appears to be in serious trouble at Holy Cross Church.

Despite many long hours of hard effort on the part of the parish's Stewardship Committee and despite weekly mentions of the importance of the CMA drive from the pulpit, Holy Cross parishioners are being much slower in supporting the CMA this year than they have been in the past:

Thank you to the 200 members of Holy Cross have who pledged a total of $ 27,713 to the Diocesan Ministry Appeal as of November 12. This takes us to 39% of our goal.

At this time last year, the pledges of 281 parishioners had gotten us to 56% of our goal.

Last year Holy Cross had a CMA assessment of $65,019. That and the 56% mentioned in the last sentence tells us that total CMA pledges this time last year were some $36,411.

The number of pledges is down by 81, or 29%:

HCDonors

The total pledged is also down, in this case by almost $8,700, or 24%:

HCPledges

Perhaps the economy has something to do with this downturn, but the sheer magnitude of the numbers would suggest it could only be playing a minor role, if any.

One can only wonder how the other parishes that had their schools closed are doing relative to last year.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've also been wondering about the progress of the CMA at the parishes whose schools closed. The DOR website's CMA breakdown by parish shows those parishes at about the same level of participation as Holy Cross (around 39-40% of the "goal").

I'm sure that Holy Cross will be punished in some way for not making the "goal."

I will give to the pastor, and he can use the money however he sees fit, but I will NOT give it to CMA!

CPT Tom said...

Anon. Of course they'll be punished...if they don't meet the CMA goal by direct donations, they will have their Parishes coffers raided for the difference. This is what happened in my own parish. Either way, the Bishop will get his money. This frustrates me as I really do not like how the diocese mis-manages money (Schools, Cathedral, questionable causes, etc.) and I see zero way to leverage them.

Mike said...

Anon. wrote, "I will give to the pastor, and he can use the money however he sees fit, but I will NOT give it to CMA!"

That's the way I'm handling it too. What would have been my CMA donation is now going to my parish.

Let the bishop confiscate it if he wants it.

RochChaCha said...

It is rather interesting just how muching preaching from the pulpit is taking place in regard to the CMA and how important it is. I can't even recall my parish preaching once or twice a year about the sanctity of life and how we need to speak out against abortion, yet my parish and I assume a lot of others are hammering us with the CMA. It's preached about, posted all over the bulletin, often in great detail. There are extra inserts in the bulletin, posters and charts hanging in the church gathering spaces. The church is not about money, but one can hardly agree after seeing the mass advertising for the CMA. When the DOR announces they met their goal, parishoners will know that it was only achieved by forcing the parish to make up the gap to their individual goals.

Anonymous said...

On top of trying to make up for the loss of our school, now our parish is desperately trying to get people to donate to the CMA. One of the Deacons actually spoke in the sermon about "getting over it" and "moving on". The past few weeks have been all about the CMA, and now the bulletin includes a section about "how our parish benefits from the CMA"
If they want my money, they can have an independent audit of the books for the past 5 years. If no one winds up indicted, I might reconsider. I'll give to my parish, let them take it if they want to, but I'm not directly helping that man reach his "goal".
CathMom

Anonymous said...

Richard Leonardi's blog, Ten Reason's' previously posted a story, actually a link to Rev. Ray Grosswirth's youtube site. The 4-5 minute video on the Reverand's website is called 'in defense of Sr. Joan Sobala'. For some reason the link has been removed from the Ten Reason's site, but I am sure this story will gain traction. Anyway......the video is posted by Rev Ray a.k.a 'priestray' on his youtube channel. I won't comment on the video, but if you watch it and read 'priestray's' profile, you will likely draw the same conclusions i did. This is quite an interesting video. See the link below for it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9GOL894GK0

Mike said...

Anon. 9:45,

The only Ray Grosswirth video I ever remember seeing on Rich's site was posted a couple of weeks ago. It is still there (see here).

It is largely an appeal against sexism (as Grosswirth defines it) and what he calls "rude comments" left on his YouTube site. It says nothing specifically about Sr. Joan.

Also, I followed your link and, according to YouTube, Grosswirth's defense of Sr. Joan was only posted this past Sunday (11/16).

Anonymous said...

Mike,

The link to the youtube video 'in defense of joan sobala' was on rich's site last night around 9-10pm and when i went back to post a comment, it was gone. Perhaps Richard felt he needed to remove it. Either way, the link to the youtube video is still valid.....and interesting.

Anonymous said...

Rochchacha is absolutely right--how often do we hear about the evils of abortion from the pulpit? We certainly didn't hear it before the elections; all we got was how we should vote our conscience, which a person could use to justify voting for any candidate, no matter what they stand for. But for weeks, we've had speakers after communion telling us how important CMA is.

Our diocese doesn't mind telling people how to spend their money, but wouldn't dare suggest that they should use their vote to support Catholic values.

Dr. K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anon 7:43...
At least your speakers are after Communion. Our priest has been using his sermons as a pledge drive. It isn't helping, it just makes us more angry!
CathMom

Anonymous said...

Dr. K,

Absolutely right. This Rev. Ray is spewing nothing but garbage. He instructs us to become familiar with Canon law and the various church documents before we start criticizing his dear friend Father Joan. Yeah it's garbage, but I still had to listen to the whole thing to hear how insane he was going to be. I pray that Rome is receiving the evidence of the multiple abuses occuring in the diocese and that they will eventually address it with Bishop Clark.

Rich Leonardi said...

I pulled last night's Grosswirth post because, as Dr. K indicates, I didn't want to generate traffic for that very disturbed man.

Anonymous said...

At Rich Leonardi's blog, Lee Strong rightfully took Dr. K to task for posting inaccuracies concerning Bishop Clark. You should be very careful about allowing Dr. K's posts here, for he has been caught repeatedly in a string of lies and slander. His true identity was learned today and will be revealed to the public-at-large on January 1.

Mike said...

Anon. 11:28,

In my experience Dr. K. has been generally spot on with his facts and analysis. He has, however, occasionally been wrong, as have I and just about everyone else I know.

When presented with the correct information he has always admitted his error and apologized. That's all I ever ask from anyone.

I'm certainly not going to ban him for making an occasional mistake and then owning up to it. If that were my policy and it were applied evenly, this blog would quickly become a monologue.

What I am going to do, though, is turn off anonymous posting, at least for a while. Everyone is still welcome to contribute their thoughts, but they'll have to use a Blogger ID or equivalent to do so.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:28 is none other than the married priest lunatic.

Mike said...

Anon. 8:59,

Yes, I figured as much. That's why I turned off anonymous posting for a few days back in November. It's interesting how comments like those just never seem to be posted once the author realizes he/she can't hide behind the "anonymous" moniker.