The Second Collection

Christians should be wise stewards of their own financial resources, and sometimes
prudence requires a critical examination of projects sponsored by Church agencies.

In 1986 Cardinal Bernard Law convened a synod for the Archdiocese of Boston. Over a period of months, the synod delegates discussed, debated, and finally approved a series of policy proposals, which the cardinal then enacted as the canons of the archdiocese.

Some of those proposals were more controversial than others, but perhaps none was quite so widely accepted as a norm stipulating that, under ordinary circumstances, there should not be more than one collection taken up at any Sunday Mass. Participants in the synod agreed, more or less unanimously, that the second collection was an unnecessary distraction from the liturgy, and should be eliminated. This new policy, they concurred, was long overdue.

Then a local historian dredged an interesting fact out of the archdiocesan archives. The last previous Boston synod, held in the early 1950s, had also called for the elimination of second collections. So the “new” policy really was not new at all; it was the re-statement of an old norm, which had long since sunk into desuetude.

After all, no one—in either the 1950s or the 1980s—had ever called for the elimination of the cardinal’s own annual fundraising appeal. The special collection for the priests’ retirement fund was also sacrosanct. By the 1980s, another collection had been added, to provide for the care of elderly nuns whose dwindling communities could not (or would not) support them. Individual parishes had their own “grand annual” appeals, along with special collections to meet the winter heating bills, and occasional drives to support the parish schools. The US bishops’ conference sponsored several collections for causes such as the Catholic Communications Campaign, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and Catholic University. Then there was the Peter’s Pence collection, a few special appeals for the missions, and an occasional emergency drive to aid the victims of some natural disaster.

With only a bit of imagination, one can understand how the “unusual circumstances” which justified a second collection under the Boston policy would arise almost every week. And sure enough, a dozen years after the “new” policy was announced, the best intentions of the synod had been submerged beneath the practical demands of fundraising. On Sunday mornings in a typical parish, the second collection was again the rule rather than the exception.

Prudential judgments

Aside from the distraction it may cause—which can be minimized by careful liturgical planning—there is nothing horribly wrong with a second collection. But the proliferation of special collections makes it difficult for the layman to know, from week to week, whether or not he should reach for his checkbook. Should he really contribute to the Catholic Communications Campaign, when Mother Angelica has shown that she could use the same funds far more efficiently? Should he support the bishops’ pro-life activities, or lay initiatives? Should he donate to a large Catholic university staffed by dissidents, or a small school loyal to the magisterium?

For active Catholics, besieged by fundraising appeals from scores of different charitable organizations, these are not idle questions. Wise investors scrutinize every possibility before making a commitment. It is impossible to gather the relevant information about a charitable cause in the time it takes the ushers to pass through the congregation with the collection baskets.

Certainly the most egregious use of the second collection is the annual nationwide appeal for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Over the years CWR has published several stories calling attention to CCHD grants that have fallen into the hands of radical activists promoting legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. The defenders of the CCHD have argued (not very plausibly, in our view) that the agency itself has never given its support to groups whose policies are incompatible with Church teachings. But even when the activities of the CCHD are viewed in the most favorable light, it cannot be denied that the agency contributes to partisan political causes—causes which many faithful Catholics would find downright objectionable. Why should Catholic laymen be asked to subsidize clerics in their partisan political endeavors?

As active citizens, Catholics should contribute to the political causes they find most compelling. They should also be generous in their support for missionary works, evangelical efforts, and humanitarian projects. But they should choose their favorite charities carefully, ensuring that their money will be used wisely. In happier times, perhaps Catholics could safely assume that any funds collected in their parish churches would ultimately go to a worthy cause. Today, prudent Catholics make no such assumptions.

—Philip F. Lawler