- 103 -
Laughlin in defining his objective states "...the structure
that we adopt...should be enabling and encouraging growth in the
parish giving rather than stifling it. But...any structure of itself
cannot achieve alone growth - but it can and should help". His scheme
is obviously a move in that direction but he notes himself that the
principal objections to it being implemented are behavioural
"...the typical incumbent...does not mind being patronised by the
Saints of the past or the anonymous diocese, but to be sponsored
financially by the parish up the road...is too much!" although his
own opinion is that "...the problems - especially financial - are
great at the moment and need radical solutions...". Probably he is
right and probably - eventually - it will be somewhere on his line of
reasoning that diocesan boards of finance will come to rest if their
respective diocesan shares continue to increase in the future in the
same way that they have in the recent past.
Summary
Other dioceses display widely differing methods of allocating
share, there is a trend towards potential income rather than actual
income, but no unanimity as to method of calculation. There is
possibly a preference among dioceses which are largely homogeneous
(especially if largely urban) for a precise formula, and among
those less homogeneous (such as Bradford, which mixes urban with
rural) for something more flexible. However, within the various
systems adopted, and some theoretical systems being postulated, there
are several technical ideas which would merit closer consideration.
