How would you respond to a disgruntled Catholic who refuses to give to the church because of the huge monetary sums that some dioceses are giving to victims of "bad" priests? She says to refuses to give for this reason and is looking for a new church. Help me, help her.

-- mary anne eastman (eastmanm@aol.com), March 31, 2002

Answers

Hello Mary Anne,

Here are some brief thoughts...

1) I belong to a Diocese, I contribute to the Diocese. I would stop giving to the diocese on only one condition--if I believed that the Diocese was not spreading the Gospel of Jesus to those who live in the diocese. I would also ask, if your government was sued for its internment of Japanese Americans during WW-II, would you renounce your citizenship? Have you done so? The difference here is this: there is no Church-led conspiracy to molest children. There are inconsistencies from diocese to diocese on how it is dealt with. Let's make sure that the victims' suffering is addressed, and that all organizations (Catholic and otherwise) deal effectively with people who have pedophilia tendencies.

2) If you would like, you may choose to attend and support a local Ordered Parish. Look for Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans and find a local church that is Catholic and not part of the Diocese, if this makes your disgruntled Catholic friend happy. Although Ordered priest are sometimes assigned to diocesan parishes, Orders do have their own Churches. Email me if you would like help finding one in your area.

3) Remember that the diocese is the local Catholic Church's presence for your locality. They are charged with fostering Christian life where you live. They are the most important instrument that your community has to spread the Good News of Jesus.

God Bless you and your friend,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.

You could also put this in the category of "wider disclosure of how funds are spent".

For example, one of my friends is very active in her church, and she says supposedly the diocese is there to help with this or that expert (they're trying to build a new church), but then the diocese sends them a bill for these services! And then go into the hall or where they post the jobs available, and you can be surprised by how much the diocese jobs pay (as well as jobs within the parish, if they have a lot of money).

My own feeling is that the Church has no business competing with the private sector in terms of salaries (benefits like healthcare, yes). Church salaries, imho, should be more in line with stipends, simply because of the nature of the mission of the Church, which should be using its resources to spread the word, not on administration costs.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 01, 2002.

Then how in the world is a person who is a religious or a layperson to support themselves? You want them to be poor too? Could you elaborate on your comments please? I don't think the Church is competing at all. Some parishes are in fact have little to spent due to the greed of the parishioners themselves.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 01, 2002.

Hi Fred! Most jobs in your average parish do not require any special degrees or intensive training, and I would say that that is also true of many diocesan jobs as well. For example, most youth ministers, church musicians, etc., do not have degrees, just a willingness and ability to do the job. Same with a lot of the admin jobs (receptionist, for example). In many parishes, some of these positions are still filled with volunteer labor. So, why is a musician paid, but not the Lector/Eucharistic Minister coordinator, and so forth?

Also (and this may date me somewhat), it was a given that people who "worked for the chuch" did so at great financial sacrifice to themselves, and most people put the workers in the church in a category not the same as those of priests or nuns, but fairly close, and those people were accorded extra respect. I think a lot of people still think this way, and it would be a big surprise to them to learn that jobs in the Church can pay as much as in the private sector. In other words, you're not any better of a person for working at the church for xxx rather than at ABC Co. for the same salary (providing that ABC Co. isn't doing anything "wrong".)

Another thing to consider is the level of "service" provided by the parish to parishoners (that is not exactly the term I wanted to use, but hopefully my meaning will become clear eventually). Some have kids who go through CCD, others you see at Mass and that's about it.

Same with other things like musicians (used to be one at church myself, so can comment on this--I figure I'm at Mass anyway, so why not be a song leader? I was appalled to find out that people were making $50+ an hour for this. Singing at wedding Masses is another matter--if people are unfrugal (I'd use another word, but don't want to offend anyone) enough to spend money on dresses, caterers, etc., they can pay good money for a singer too). If the parish took a vote, would they find that people wanted music at Mass at all? Especially if they knew it was a paid position? What happened to the practice of priests saying "let us sing hymn # 123" and everyone singing a capella? To me it certainly doesn't make the singing any better to know it was paid for, and believe me, it can really tick you off when it is BAD singing and it's paid for--would rather have no music than bad music.

I guess also that when I was younger, almost everyone who did "church work" was older and probably retired--they were not supporting a household on the income (although, you talk to a lot of people, and benefits (good health insurance, for instance) will win out over low pay any day). You can always adjust your spending to your income, but if you have lots of kids, or health problems, health insurance with good coverage becomes much more important, so that's why I think that churches should up the benefits, but lower the salaries.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 01, 2002.

Now I see where you are coming from. he services of the lay ministries such as Lector and Chior singers and ministers of communion are ALL voluntary. The organist would be strictly up to the pastor and the individual. Some are paid a stipend and others are not. The one position that I saw that greatly disturbed me at my former parish in N.H. was the Paid Cantors. I thought that was pushing the envelope a bit. There were some of us who thought it was a bit wrong. A few months later the pastor was chased out of the parish due to suspected mishandling of monies and they disappeared. The Bookkeepers and religious education leaders are another story. I can see the need to pay them as they tend to put in long hours on the job. The health benefits are quite expensive today and I wonder how a parish could even afford them at all. I will try to give more to you as I think of them. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 01, 2002.

On the west coast, I have heard song leaders referred to as Music Ministers, which just makes me cringe at the thought. I did not like the term Cantor, either, and no, I DON'T think they should get paid-- you're attending Mass anyway. I would never have dreamed of asking for money, although I do think the materials (music books, for instance) should not have to come out of pocket. I have attended parishes where church musicians (of the "I'm there anyway" variety) are paid, and the singing is not so much better (in general, not comparing with anyone in particular) that it is worth paying for.

And, like I said, whether they get paid or not really depends upon the parish. At one church, we had a head of music, but it was a full-time job--he not only provided music for all the Masses (5), regardless of whether there was a song leader or not, he handled all the weekly rehearsals for all of the groups/individual song leaders too (each Mass had a different "music personality"), and all of those individuals had outside jobs as well, so rehearsals in most cases did not begin until 7pm or later, which made for a long day. Finally, he also provided instruction in the parish's school music program as well, so it was not just a part-time position by any means.

I think there needs to be some uniformity in all of this, and parishoners should be made aware of this--even to the point of being asked to vote on how much the salary (benefits too) is or should be. I think there would be much more understanding when it comes to why the church is asking for money for this or that.

I used to attend a church where they NEVER had a second collection--it would be mentioned, but in the context of "whatever we get over and above the normal amount will go to this cause" and of course whatever was placed in the special collection envelopes went to that special collection regardless). People really appreciated being able to pray after communion in peace and not having to dig through their pockets a second time.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 01, 2002.

My life long love has been classical guitar having studied for a period time and now teach. I have never asked or received monies for playing and would not think of it. My " gift " is to Christ at the celebration of the mass not the Diocese or Paster for sure.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 01, 2002.

A Jewish man asked his Rabbi for help as his son was laying about the house more often then wanted. The Rabbi said " we shall pray and the answer will be given. "

After the prayers the Rabbi said " go home and on the kitchen table put an unopened bottle of bourbon next to it a one hundred dollar bill and a Bible. If he choes the bourbon he is lost. Should he take the money perhpas he will be of benefit in the business. Should he take the bible thank god for your blessed.

Upon arriving home and setting this up the son walked in tucked the bottle under his arm - stuffed the money into his shirt pocket and took the bible.

Confused the man phoned his Rabbi and related what took place. After a moment of total silence the Rabbi declared - My God he is gong to be a Roman Catholic priest!! "

There is truth in jest!

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 01, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Mary Anne.
I suggest that you tell your acquaintance that very little of whatever she used to give (or will give) has gone (or will go) to help victims of sinful priests.
I believe that the huge sums people have heard about are actually coming from insurance policies, not from diocesan savings accounts. The dioceses involved paid relatively little to the insurance companies, who are now taking the brunt of the punishment. Of course, the companies don't feel it much either, because they have made enormous profits by investments and by not paying anything out to many people and firms (who have made no claims).

Hello, Mateo.
You stated, "Although Ordered priest are sometimes assigned to diocesan parishes, Orders do have their own Churches."
I don't think that we can put it that way -- "orders have their own churches."
I could be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, but it seems that you are saying more than simply the fact that some parishes have long been staffed by Franciscans or Dominicans or Jesuits, etc.. It seems as though you are saying that these parishes operate fully independently of the local bishop -- or at least that these religious orders control all the funds collected within the parishes that they staff. Even before trying to find something about this in Canon Law, I did not believe that any of those things was true. I think that the following canons support what I had previously believed:

Canon 515 §1 -- A parish is a certain community of Christ's faithful stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor. §2 -- The diocesan Bishop alone can establish, suppress or alter parishes ...

Canon 520 §1 -- ... the diocesan Bishop ... can, with the consent of the competent Superior, entrust a parish to a clerical religious institute or to a clerical society of apostolic life ... §2 -- The entrustment of a parish ... may be either in perpetuity or for a specified time. In either case this is to be done by means of a written agreement made between the diocesan Bishop and the competent Superior of the institute or society. This agreement must expressly and accurately define, among other things, the work to be done, the persons to be assigned to it and the financial arrangements. [Mateo, I believe that every parish, whether staffed by diocesan or religious priests, must send a percentage ("assessment") of its collections to the bishop. This would be part of the "financial arrangements" agreed to in writing. JFG]

Canon 1266 §1 -- In all churches and oratories regularly open to Christ's faithful, including those belonging to religious institutes, the local Ordinary may order that a special collection be taken up for specified parochial, diocesan, national or universal initiatives. The collection must afterwards be carefully forwarded to the diocesan curia.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 05, 2002.

Hi John,

Thanks for the quotes from Canon Law. Here are some responses.

Many parishes were founded by orders (predating an established local Diocese. The parishes are "turned over" to the Diocese as the Catholic Community grows. Does this "turning over" only include a transition to diocesan priests, or is there a change in the financial arrangements?

We clearly agree that the priests do not make the parish "Diocesan" or "Ordered." But, as a common example, where does a Franciscan College's Campus Church fit in--is it financially tied to the Diocese where it is located?

Ecclesiastically, the ordered priests report to their superiors in the Order. While the "Ordered" Church acts as part of the Diocese, I have heard priests talk about transferring Churches from the Order to the Diocese for financial reasons. This would be consistent with Religious and Pontifical Universities, both of which act independently of the local bishop.

I do know that both lay groups (typically ethnic) and religious orders use their own money to establish churches. These are not divided on parish boundaries. In that sense, I would call a "parish" an inappropriate way to describe these churches. They are not parishes in the geographical sense of the word, though they are communities. So maybe the "parish churches" that the Canon law speaks of is a subset of church types, and not meant to describe all Catholic communities.

Regarding collections, I wouldn't be surprised if a Bishop could require all Latin Rite churches to take a second collection; but I don't know if that automatically means that the Diocese is "running the show" for the non-Diocesan churches' finances.

I am by no means an expert on this...I'm just trying to make sense of my experiences and your presentation of Canon Law.

Thanks!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 05, 2002.

My first impulse after reading all this was to stay out, since I have no useful opinion, really. My usual attitude toward money is, let somebody else worry about it. My wife and I have doubled our own contribution twice in only a few years, only because she has a truly generous heart. I feel that if I were to object in some way, God would be offended; so I co-operate.

It was the musical aspect which caused me to respond. I'm a great lover of classical music. It has really grated on my nerves for many years, hearing all the banality and trash which has passed for sacred music since shortly after Vatican II.

So many times I've meditated in the direction of the holy tabernacle; silently saying to Our Lord: ''Gone are the days when Schubert and Mozart and Bach were offered up to your glory, My Jesus. Why has your people not brought forth their BEST at thy altar; and who will ever see those days here again?''

I really love even our modern composers' great music. Not just the old Masters. It ought to be included in the liturgy. Silence is preferable, I believe-- to much of what's passing for liturgical music today. Not all-- but some.

If paying the musicians is what it calls for; they must be paid. The laborer deserves his wage. Many excellent musicians have made huge expenses to become skilled and educated. I see no reason to demand they donate their labor; not if it's to give God the BEST which man and woman can offer. No great musician works for nothing anymore. We ought to be grateful to God for still giving some their gifts and talents. I for one have never seen necessary to thank God for money. Take the money away and I can still be joyful; as long as there's great music.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.

John, I think as more of these settlements come to light, more and more insurance companies are going to pull out of "the business" so to speak--we see it with health care and auto insurance companies now, why not the same with insurance companies that deal with churches? You can't force someone to do business with you.

If that happens, then those settlements will come out of church collections, and I can understand where someone would be upset about it.

Eugene, as to music, I would rather have silence than bad music, but I really hate sitting through a Mass where the singer sings and the congregation is supposed to sit and shut up--in other words, be totally discouraged from singing. If I want to go to a concert, I will go to a concert. Church is different, we can all participate, no matter how in or out of tune our voices are.

My main complaint about paying for singing (or anything done for the parish in a broader sense), is that the entire parish (or at least those attending the particular Mass involved) should be involved in deciding if and how much people should be paid for doing so, or even if something is desired or not. I have noticed that it really depends upon your age and the Mass you attend (time-wise), as to whether you want music or not. People attending 6:30am Mass either want it quiet, or with traditional organ music, while those attending a youth Mass at 6pm might have a quartet including a flute or trumpet, for example. How hard is it to include a survey in the bulletin, or complete one during collection?

If, for example, the same person is at every Mass on a weekend, I can see paying them a stipend, however, most singers/musicians are one Mass only types (in other words, if they weren't singing up front they'd be in a pew), then no, I don't agree with paying them at all (except for buying the music for them), no matter how well trained they are.

For the record, I like traditional hymns played on an organ, the Missa Bossa Nova, and the older folk (guitar) music of that time. I like many of the songs in Breaking Bread, but am appalled at the "modernization" of some hymns and the out and out substitution of completely new lyrics for others--I don't care that they're in the public domain, write your own complete song, darn it! I don't care for what is called "contemporary Christian music" (example: Amy Grant) at all--too "unreligious" for me, I guess. The only time I ever hear anything classical at Mass is when there's a funeral and someone wants the Ave Maria.

And, there is always the option of playing recorded classical music as opposed to paying a singer (there are probably royalty issues even with the recordings), but that is still cheaper than a singer.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 05, 2002.

OK, GT--
We could go around all day. Let's not. You and I are bound to disagree in that I'm a pre-Vatican II Catholic, and when I began to love God and His Church, the ''Parish Council'' idea was still in the future. Just as you only now said, there is a committee mentality about who must play or not, who would deserve payment or not; and why would the Pastor alone be allowed this decision?

So-- I'm of the school who made the Church superior to the Parish Council. There's the main problem.

You and many others think that's medieval and ridiculous. You may be in the majority. Every time you hear a musical production for our liturgy in which TASTE is absolutely ignored and missing, thank a committee for it. Let freedom ring!

The Pastor, meanwhile, takes orders from the Parish Council. The Pastor in some cases, was probably a member of some Parish council, before he took holy orders! My Mom-in-law has it down just perfectly: ''La caca esta arriba!''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.

I think it depends more upon the individual parish priest as to whether he takes into consideration anything the Parish Council says. And I also know someone who wanted to be on the Finance Committee in their parish, and was turned down because he had an accounting background. I mean, I don't know of any church that ever had too many volunteers, so yes, I would wonder about that too.

Actually, I favor more a direct vote on some things rather than letting some committee or other do it. Like, take the example of building a new church--do you really need to pay an outside consultant big bucks to do a feasibility study of it for you? No, of course not. A simple survey or vote of the registered parishoners would do just as well, provided the questions were up front and balanced.

Should just the pastor and/or a Parish Council decide to drive this "build a new church plan" without the backing of most of the parish, who after all will be the ones paying for it? I don't think so, but I've seen it happen.

To me, if it involves extra admin expenses, the people who are paying for these salaries, stipends, etc., should have a voice. If it is donated money, or matters that don't involve money, then it is probably sufficient to let the pastor and/or parish council decide alone.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 05, 2002.

Look, I'm all in favor of spending the money where it does the most good. You aren't the only one, GT. Yet, we know very well when it comes to planning in the cultural or spiritual or aesthetic sense, we can't expect a parish council to know what's best. All the councils ever choose is to let teenagers show off with the guitars. Above all because they play for free! A good pastor will at least think of what's worthy of God.

Yes, the rank and file needs a voice. But not as to what can elevate divine worship! It requires some religious mentality. That is in part what the clergy is for. To lift up our hearts; to sanctify the people. A parish council, I'm afraid-- dumbs down worship and thinks only of effects. What to entertain the audience with. It's scandalous in some parishes. It didn't use to be this way in the past. Only what was good and seemly was ever offered up to God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 06, 2002.

Along Eugene's line of reasoning, what could be a more disturbing metaphor:

"Parish Councils" vote that their Tabernacle should be hidden away in some inconspicuous place. These councils banish the Blessed Sacrament (Jesus) from its rightful place on the altar, just as the "Parish Council" in Jerusalem banished Jesus despite the objections from Pontius Pilate.

Sometimes, "Parish Councils" don't have a long-term (or big-picture) outlook.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 06, 2002.

Amen, Matt--
And to continue the parallel; Who loved the parish council of Jerusalem more than Jesus Christ? Who would have gathered the people under His wing as a hen loves her own chicks?

All this parish council does is think of how to spend the wealth; and it's rarely spent on glorifying God anymore. --When it's for God, it ought to be the very best.

Certainly it's fitting that all the people participate in the liturgy; in song and every other expression of love for Him. It needn't be without a refined music director; one worthy of the Parish's expense. And real musicians who have the necessary training and background for keeping up our great Church traditions.

Nowadays I get the impression it isn't for God; it's for the applause after every performance. Just like the rock concerts. I wish someone would tell me it's going to get better, and not worse. --?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 06, 2002.

Why are we so worried about the quality of the music and the singing. We should be concentrating more on the fact that we are there to worship GOD. The Cantor or the choir is important for only one purpose-to lead us to prayer. We are NOT there to be entertained, but to honor GOD and Worhip him for what he has given us. LIFE. Let's not lose track on the real Presence of GOD, Christ the LORD. AMEN.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 06, 2002.

No worse than clapping after weddings, which I've seen too....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 06, 2002.

Hello, Mateo.

I too am not an expert on this subject (parishes, religous orders staffing/"owning" them, the finances, etc.). If either of us happens to meet a knowledgeable chancery type, let's grill him and report back to each other here.

You wrote: "Many parishes were founded by orders (predating an established local Diocese)."
I don't think that this is true. I think that there has always been a bishop or "apostolic administrator" to whom the orders have been ultimately subject. For example, John Carroll was the first U.S. bishop (in Baltimore, around 1770?), but his diocese was utterly gigantic, spreading through many states and territories, far to the west. Meanwhile, I think that the colonies under Spanish political control (Mexico, California, etc.) -- where the Franciscans were creating parishes -- were probably under the archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico, or Ciudad Mexico. I think that these bishops approved or disapproved of the parochial plans of the religious orders.

You wrote: "The [religious order] parishes are 'turned over' to the Diocese as the Catholic Community grows."
I'm sure that you are right that some of this has happened, though I haven't seen it. Instead your statement made me think of something ironic that I have observed in my diocese: religious orders letting go of parishes because (1) they are heterodox and shrinking or (2) they have been asked to take a hike by my bishop.

You asked, "Does this 'turning over' only include a transition to diocesan priests, or is there a change in the financial arrangements?"
I don't know.

You asked: "... where does a Franciscan College's Campus Church fit in -- is it financially tied to the Diocese where it is located?"
I don't know that either, but I suspect that it is something special and possibly independent, because it is more of a chapel/oratory and is not called a "parish."

You wrote: "I do know that both lay groups (typically ethnic) and religious orders use their own money to establish churches. These are not divided on parish boundaries. In that sense, I would call a 'parish' an inappropriate way to describe these churches. They are not parishes in the geographical sense of the word, though they are communities. So maybe the 'parish churches' that the Canon law speaks of is a subset of church types, and not meant to describe all Catholic communities."
Well, I hate to tell you this, since you would call it "inappropriate," but these special institutions are indeed called "parishes" in Canon Law. They were much more common during times of massive immigration in the 20th century, but I guess that they are still being established. Here is what the Code says about them: "Canon 518 -- As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ's faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis."
Actually, Mateo, I am only familiar with ethnic personal parishes. You would have to prove to me that a religious order could build a new personal parish that transcends territorial boundaries -- sort of to attract all the Jesuit-minded people of a metropolis, for example. I don't think that the Church likes that kind of thing, because the scattered members would be too physically separate from each other.

You stated: "Regarding collections, I wouldn't be surprised if a Bishop could require all Latin Rite churches to take a second collection; but I don't know if that automatically means that the Diocese is 'running the show' for the non-Diocesan churches' finances."
I don't think that I implied that the diocese is "running the show," but only that it probably has written in the agreement that a parish staffed by religious priests must contribute an assessment (small percentage of collections) to the chancery. The religious "run the show," but must be obedient to the bishop with regard to liturgy, doctrine, and (I think) some financial aid.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 08, 2002.

How would you respond to a disgruntled Catholic who refuses to give to the church because of the huge monetary sums that some dioceses are giving to victims of "bad" priests? -- mary anne

Mary Anne, in response to your question, I would not worry about your friend. It is her business if she refuses to give to the church. If you are comfortable still giving to your Bishop, knowing that "billions" of dollars have been spent on hush money and law suits, that is your choice. We all have to live with our own choices. Pray for your friend that God leads her to the right place, that he give her wisdom and guidance.

Your friend is not alone, Mary Anne. Many people are still not sure what they are going to do about the Bishop's Appeal. Supposedly, this money was paid through an insurance fund. What insurance fund? Insurance for "sexual misconduct by priests?" Please explain. I do not understand what kind of insurance policy the money came from.

Still, if it came from an insurance policy, we are talking about billions of dollars, how much were the premiums for this kind of insurance, and where does the money come for the premiums?

There are lots of questions that have yet to be answered here.

People work very hard for their money, Mary Anne and the laity have to pay for college loans, mortgages, car payments, doctors, dentists, taxes (we do pay real estate taxes, whereas the church owns lots of property - tax free). We have to pay for gas, electric, telephone bills, food, clothing, etc., etc., etc., etc.......there is not that much left out of our pay checks....BUT, THE CHURCH CAN PAY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LAW SUITS.....God Bless you Mary Anne if you don't have a problem with that but we do, and so do many others.....

I could go on and on and on....but I prefer no to. I love my church, and my God, but right now I am a very confused catholic who would like some answers before I give my very hard-earned money away.

I would rather give it to a charity of my choice - where the people do not live in nice houses like our pastors do, where the people do not serve dinner to the Bishops on the best china, where the people do not have swimming pools, sun rooms, nice cars, nice clothes, and vacations to Europe two or three times a year (as do our priests and bishops) It is something to thing about, Mary Anne, and something to question....

-- cathy colarusso (marlborocat@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

Dear Friends,
If you never again contribute a penny to the Church or any of her charities and expenses or appeals, don't let it bother your consciences. I myself have no proble doing what I'm able. But, I haven't had any scndals near our parish. If there were, I would hope my priests were protected with the necessary insurance.

Because you see, all of them have not sinned. The bishops who shunted a bad priest into another parish dishonestly are sinners, and the perverts themselves. But innocent priests are the ones who will now suffer. That's what I meant in one of the first threads appearing here about Cardinal Law's diocese. The innocent pay for the guilty.

Don't contribute at all, if you feel you can't. I'm sure God will not hold it against you, or punish you. God will always be generous to you, with or without your giving. He only wants what you give freely.

God loves a generous giver, is the saying. And, didn't Jesus Christ praise the love and generosity of the poor widow who offered the Widow's Mite?

If you will give even a few cents to your Church, do it cheerfully. You are under NO obligation. Because no one has ever bought God's love.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 16, 2002.

Hi Cathy,

Some replies to your post.

Cathy Colarusso wrote:

"What insurance fund? Insurance for "sexual misconduct by priests?" Please explain. I do not understand what kind of insurance policy the money came from."

I don't know about the Church, but I do know that businesses must purchase insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits...any lawsuits. I don't know exactly what the fine print says, but I would expect that this is what's going on with this civil litigation. Just as any other insurance, premiums vary based on risk. Ever had a car accident?

Cathy Colarusso wrote:

"I love my church, and my God, but right now I am a very confused catholic who would like some answers before I give my very hard-earned money away."

"I would rather give it to a charity of my choice - where the people do not live in nice houses like our pastors do, where the people do not serve dinner to the Bishops on the best china, where the people do not have swimming pools, sun rooms, nice cars, nice clothes, and vacations to Europe two or three times a year (as do our priests and bishops) It is something to thing about, Mary Anne, and something to question...."

Regarding the lavish priestly life, I don't think that your description is the norm.

Regarding contributing to the church, would you rather see the Catholic Church be cash-strapped and possibly go bankrupt than to support it financially? This is a curious position. If you "love the Church," you probably know that the money enables the local church to support its capital expenses (Church and school mortgage), staff (including priests, teachers, admin) and supporting local charitable efforts (soap kitchens, etc). If you would like to contribute to other charities, the Catholic Church encourages that.

If money is a problem, why don't you contribute your time to the Church? Teach CCD. Provide assistance to immigrants. Work at a free-clinic. If you love your Church, be a catalyst to inspire others to love Jesus. Imitate Jesus by giving of your talent and time.

Like Eugene said, giving of one's self (money, time, talent) should be done cheerfully!

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

Mateo, I think it falls under the realm of "malpractice" insurance, as priests do "advise" people on different matters, much like shrinks.

As to mortgages, the parishes wouldn't have them if they operated like some other churches I know who raise the money first before laying the foundation. For example, ours wants to build a new church, but they only have 3 Masses per weekend and none of them are full to bursting except perhaps at the holidays. The cheapest, and simplest solution is to hold more Masses and set aside the extra monies from the collection for the new church. You don't build a bigger plant so you can have it sit idle much of the time--you run more shifts.

As to the lifestyle of priests--that depends upon the parish. I doubt that they pay taxes on the Christmas money people give them, for example, and when your room and board comes with the job, even a small salary can easily cover the costs of a vacation--and that's not even considering all of the priests who lead trips to the Holy Land and probably go free themselves. Not passing judgement--just telling it like it is.

It used to be also that priests lived "on campus", so to speak, and were somewhat available to people. Many don't nowadays, and you can ONLY reach them through the office number--in other words, they keep office hours. Houses owned/rented in town cost extra money (although they are tax exempt).

As to the Church going bankrupt, I doubt it. There is so much in the way of art,real estate, etc., that I think it is a remote possibility at best.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

GT

Your Words:

"As to the Church going bankrupt, I doubt it. There is so much in the way of art,real estate, etc., that I think it is a remote possibility at best."

Answer this one; Cardinal Law's residence is now being sold to cover the debts owed by the Archdiocese. You say the Church will not go bankrupt? I think the signs are showing that it is happening now. For years the Vatican has had to depend on private and charity groups like the K of C to maintain the vatican buildings and the trips by the Pope and his protection too. Where do you get the idea the Church has a secret pocket of cash. It is disappearing fast. In actuality the Church is becoming very poor financially. Look at the statistics. We as Catholics are the worst financial supporters of the Church. Others have been much more generous than the Catholics. LORD HAVE MERCY.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 17, 2002.

Well, I do know that the church could sell or rent out much of its art collection, as well as perhaps collect real estate rents--perhaps move a priest back to the rooms (that were turned into lay offices) at the rectory and rent out the house in town in my earlier post.

It all gets back to what people believe they are supporting when they donate money to some organization (and I am not singling out the Church here, this applies to any charitable organization). Contributors should have the right to know where every single dime goes. I want to know how much insurance costs, I want to know how much, and why, you pay so-and- so this much money, etc. And this has always been a problem, it is nigh onto impossible to find out.

And perhaps Mateo's solution is best, to donate time instead of money, but that still doesn't address the inequity of paid vs. unpaid.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

Hi GT,

You're words are in bold.

Mateo, I think it falls under the realm of "malpractice" insurance, as priests do "advise" people on different matters, much like shrinks."

I would disagree, the Catholic Church is being sued (not the priests). Businesses have insurance that covers any law suit that is brought against the business. I would think this is what is going on here.

"As to mortgages, the parishes wouldn't have them if they operated like some other churches I know who raise the money first before laying the foundation. For example, ours wants to build a new church, but they only have 3 Masses per weekend and none of them are full to bursting except perhaps at the holidays. The cheapest, and simplest solution is to hold more Masses and set aside the extra monies from the collection for the new church. You don't build a bigger plant so you can have it sit idle much of the time--you run more shifts."

Two points:

1) From the beginning of this statement, can I assume that you also believe it is imprudent for an individual or family to purchase a home until they have all the money to pay for it? I can't see the difference between these two situations.

2) I do readily agree with you that many churches can and should put in extra "shifts." We have some churches where they have 6-7 masses, especially in multiple-lingual parishes. My Church has 5 Sunday masses and 2 daily masses each morning (not counting some evening masses throughout the week).

"It used to be also that priests lived "on campus", so to speak, and were somewhat available to people. Many don't nowadays, and you can ONLY reach them through the office number--in other words, they keep office hours. Houses owned/rented in town cost extra money (although they are tax exempt)."

Again I agree with you here. Most of the local parishes have "on-campus" housing for the priests. This is important so that the priests are available in case of an emergency.

"As to the Church going bankrupt, I doubt it. There is so much in the way of art,real estate, etc., that I think it is a remote possibility at best."

So are you suggesting that the Church start selling off its assets? Would you mind if your church was sold to cover shortfalls in donations? Also, recall that most art is donated to the church. Along these lines, if you donated a nice statue or painting to the Church, would you expect it to be sold-off to raise money? Would this not discourage you from beautifying your church through a donation of art work?

Churches are a funny thing. They are a critical institution in keeping our Christian community together. Yet some people believe that Christianity would just go on growing without an infrastructure to support the propogation of the faith. I think that many find it all too easy to discount the important role that a physical church presence plays.

"Contributors should have the right to know where every single dime goes. I want to know how much insurance costs, I want to know how much, and why, you pay so-and- so this much money, etc. And this has always been a problem, it is nigh onto impossible to find out."

Could you tell me what your point of reference is? My church provides us with a detailed summary of church income/expenses each year, but I don't think that I would be allowed to login to their accounting system to review each individual transaction. I don't see this as out of the ordinary. What level of detail would you expect from your church in providing a review of its finances? What do you expect from other non-church organizations?

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

Mateo, as to priests not living "on campus"--we actually were told at Mass, not to give out the address of the pastor's living quarters, nor his phone #, that everything was to go through the rectory (office) in order to respect his "private" time. I am not kidding. I don't know if there was a real problem with people "just dropping in" or what, but I never thought I'd hear that at Mass.

On mortgages, a lot of people have bought their houses this way (money first) depending upon where they live, but the issue also is that a private citizen does not really have the option of asking for donations in the way churches do.

My major gripe is that (at least in our case) there is not the donation base that would be necessary to sustain the weekly collections (part of which would go to reducing the church debt), so that your mortgage (interest mounting up as well) perhaps runs longer than necessary because of this.

The attitude seems to be "let's build a bigger church so that we can continue to have only 3 Masses". Most people don't go and buy a bigger house because they have an extra child--they double up in the bedrooms. Anytime you ask about extra Masses, the priest shortage comes up as well--although we have had communion services when a "rent-a- priest (they even refer to themselves that way, lol) doesn't make it. If you have 7 Masses and every Mass were crowded, not just one or two, I think people would donate, especially when they couldn't attend Mass because the parking lot was full (that's happened on Holy Days when usually there are fewer Masses).

As to the church building itself, unless it is a really cool gothic cathedral (which they aren't building too many of anymore), I would be just as happy holding services outside or in any building. You can pray anywhere. I also don't understand why you can't cut some costs by using one design--schools do it all the time--saves a lot on architect costs. They don't all have to be the same in the county, but certainly that is an option to look at. As to giving art, etc. to the church, as the donor I suppose you can write in whatever restrictions you wish, and the church would have to abide by them or give back the art (more like a loan in that sense, but museums operate that way).

We get a one-page sheet with single-line entries, Admin/salaries xxxx, etc. I have no idea who in the bulletin is full-time, part-time, or volunteer. You can't tell what the admin/salaries are paying for--1 person at full salary/benefits, or a stipend for 10 different people. No, I don't expect day-to-day transactions, but certainly salaries should be broken down, at a minimum. Value of real estate, and other assets. And yes, I would expect this of other organizations as well. Unfortunately, it is not required by law, but it should be.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

GT,

You write:

"Unfortunately, it is not required by law, but it should be."

As non-believers cry "separation of church and state" (something not found in the Constitution), how inconsistent is this with that doctrine? I don't believe that even the SEC requires such detail from publicly traded companies.

If you suspect financial mismanagement at your church, then try to make your point of view known in a charitable way. You'll go a long way by a loving correction than by prejudging people when you don't have all the facts.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

"If you have 7 Masses and every Mass were crowded, not just one or two, I think people would donate, especially when they couldn't attend Mass because the parking lot was full (that's happened on Holy Days when usually there are fewer Masses)."

Yes, all of the masses are well attended. :-)

I will say that full parking lots should be the signal to start another mass. On the other side of mass, exiting a crowded parking lot can be the biggest challenge to remembering Christian brotherly love. For me, I just stay in the church and pray until the traffic jam dies down. :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

Mateo, but if I don't like how an organization (charitable or not) conducts its business, I can stop donating/buying, with no guilt attached. The Church, on the other hand, makes it out to be a faith issue, which it shouldn't be at all.

As to the other, well a friend of mine was welcome on his parish's finance committee (had already been serving on the Parish Council), until he informed them of his background in accounting. That sends the wrong message to me....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

Now we see some people questioning every little thing a priest does. Boy this is getting bad. How would you all like to say the same mass three -six times on the same day? In the past we were able to have a priest for each separate Mass. Now we have only one priest for all masses. That is becoming a real problem for the churches as the priests are being burnt out long before retirement age. Some people just can't see well as to the real problems out there. We are only to recieve Communion once a day and the priests are forced to recieve 3- 6 times a day. That is wrong. So what is your problem folks? You have no idea what is going on here anymore. All you care about is ME, ME, ME. WAKE UP.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 17, 2002.

GT writes:

"Mateo, but if I don't like how an organization (charitable or not) conducts its business, I can stop donating/buying, with no guilt attached. The Church, on the other hand, makes it out to be a faith issue, which it shouldn't be at all."

I have problems with how the US government, the state government, the local government, and my home-owner's association conducts their finances. I have little power (unless I simply pack up and sell my house to move to another country. I try to contribute my opinion where I can...

GT writes:

"As to the other, well a friend of mine was welcome on his parish's finance committee (had already been serving on the Parish Council), until he informed them of his background in accounting. That sends the wrong message to me...."

So if you aren't an account, you should be welcome! :-)

Just kidding. Are you saying that this friend was removed from a finance committee because he understood accounting? I honestly can't see what the threat would be. His insight is probably no greater than anyone else's.

Fred writes:

"How would you all like to say the same mass three -six times on the same day?"

Fred,

First, priests should feel honored if they can lead mass 3-6 times on a Sunday. Priests have a huge privelege to be special instruments of grace. They are called to serve, and most love when they are serving the community.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

It was because he had some questions about where some funds went, that might not have been asked had it not been for his background--and even when on the Parish Council, he had problems getting answers to questions. And if your pastor is not into accounting, that can just compound the problem.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

Hi GT,

If someone on the Parish Council is being forbidden from seeing finances, it makes me wonder who can see the finances of the church.

I don't think that it takes a formal education to see something that looks fishy in the finances.

"And if your pastor is not into accounting, that can just compound the problem."

It sounds to me that we're talking about a parish council making financial decisions and hiding them from the priest. Yikes.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 17, 2002.

When I mentioned the pastor, I am talking in the sense that while most of us understand balancing our checkbooks (simple money in, money out, don't spend more than you earn), and perhaps simple bookkeeping, accounting is fairly difficult for many people (and we're not even talking fishy accounting like at Enron) to grasp. I agree, you should be able to explain the financials in terms that all can understand.

But it is not at all uncommon to not be able to find out this or that, or why such and such fund went to pay something else, for example. Not everyone knows to ask, though.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 17, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, folks.

I was amazed to see two or three people say that there is nothing wrong with a Catholic ceasing to contribute money (or something else of value, such as time/talent) to the Church, because of a disagreement, scandal, etc..
We have no such option to totally cut off the Church. We know this from things repeatedly said by St. Paul and also because we must obey the "precepts" of the Church under pain of serious sin -- one of which precepts says that we must contribute to the support of the Church. [CCC 2043: "The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities."]

In the unlikely event that one's parish and/or diocese is certainly corrupt and cannot be entrusted with a parishioner's donations, then the parishioner must support the Church in some other way. Two good cash-related options are supporting the Pope's fund for charity (Peter's Pence) and supporting houses of contemplative monks and nuns that do not have an easy way to earn income.

I noticed some references to parish councils above. Most people do not know what the Church has to say about councils. The reality is that Canon Law
(1) requires a "finance committee to help the parish priest" and
(2) requires a bishop to decide whether or not each of his parishes should have a (consultative-only) "pastoral council."

Here are the details about the committee/council's limited purposes:

Canon 536 §1 -- If, after consulting the council of priests, the diocesan Bishop considers it opportune, a pastoral council is to be established in each parish. In this council, which is presided over by the parish priest, Christ's faithful, together with those who by virtue of their office are engaged in pastoral care in the parish, give their help in fostering pastoral action. §2 -- The pastoral council has only a consultative vote, and it is regulated by the norms laid down by the diocesan Bishop.

Canon 537 In each parish there is to be a finance committee to help the parish priest in the administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to canon 532. It is ruled by the universal law and by the norms laid down by the diocesan Bishop, and it is comprised of members of the faithful selected according to these norms. [Canon 532: Can. 532 In all juridical matters, the parish priest acts in the person of the parish, in accordance with the law. He is to ensure that the parish goods are administered in accordance with canons 1281­1288.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.