I think you're misinterpreting the numbers. OLA's goal fell just short of 1% of the Archdiocese total, but I think a good financial manager would think 1% was too important to lose. And the actual total was almost $86,000, which put OLA at the top of the small-parish "overachievers," and is more like 2% of the total. Who among us would like to lose 2% of our income. [We don't like it, but, er, these days it happens.]I certainly agree that heads would roll in a corporation that lost a customer who accounted for 1% of sales. On the other hand, I don't think we know much about what was going on in 2016 regarding the parish and Fr Phillips, except that it was something, it was going on for much of the year behind closed doors, and nothing was public until the "save Atonement" ruckus started early this year. As best we know, things had been before the CDF for months at that time.In fact OLA's total as a "small parish" puts them not too far below the no. 10 spot in the "large parish" category, which I think is impressive.
As far as participation goes, I'm shocked that the top large parish had only a 33% participation rate! Stupid me: I always thought you HAD to give to the Bishop's appeal, or risk getting a phone call asking you what your problem was. I always figured that my lack of participation would be a personal embarrassment to my pastor, and gave accordingly. Doesn't seem like this is the prevailing sentiment in San Antonio.
I think there are two important points here. One: perhaps the low participation at OLA reflects general disenchantment with the Archdiocese and an expectation of aligning with the OCSP. Two: the healthy response by those who did participate reflects a desire among a strong minority of parishioners to stay with the status quo. Perhaps the Archbishop felt it was his obligation to continue to shepherd this portion of the flock and not let them go with just a wink and a wave.
I think OLA's almost perfect fulfillment rate demonstrates that there was a very important minority of the congregation who may love the mass there, and might have been perfectly content with Fr. Phillips, but also was content with being part of the Archdiocese and didn't see a need to depart for the uncertainty of the OCSP.
Bottom line: I think reasons of financial support of the Archdiocese could very well be part of the Archbishop's objection to letting them go, and I also believe he felt an obligation to the minority who did not want to go.
Certainly one explanation for the overage in the 2016 archbishop's appeal donation could have been Fr Phillips approaching certain of his loyalists -- everyone seems to acknowledge that this was a small number -- to send a message to the archdiocese with a substantial contribution. The issues may have been complex, and the effort to go to the OCSP could have been just one wing of a save-Phillips effort. Another wing could have been to try to convince the archbishop that Fr Phillips was too valuable to lose.
My visitor is correct to point out that there are many loose ends here, and no single theory is going to tie them all together. My own view continues to be that it's a good thing Fr Phillips has been sidelined, as I believe he had more influence, via Msgr Stetson and otherwise, on the St Mary of the Angels debacle of 2011-12 than I had previously thought.
