Table of Contents
The Right to Remuneration of Every Priest
Can a priest lose the right to remuneration?
Introduction
Last week’s post examined the sustainability and maintenance of Church buildings, arguing that as effective stewards of Church resources, pastors need to distinguish between a project that is valuable because it serves a pastoral need and one undertaken because it will demonstrate visible evidence of achievement.
Effective pastoral stewardship is also influenced by the equity, reliability, and sustainability of priests’ remuneration and social welfare.
Remuneration and social assistance of priests are necessary so that priests can dedicate themselves to the ministry without anxiety about the necessities of life. Hence, today’s post begins a discussion on the remuneration and social welfare of priests. Over the coming weeks, it will explore the canonical norms and current challenges and propose a template that could help achieve income equity among priests.
The Right to Remuneration of Every Priest
The 1983 Code of Canon Law provision regarding the right to remuneration of priests reads:
§1. Since clerics dedicate themselves to ecclesiastical ministry, they deserve remuneration which is consistent with their condition, taking into account the nature of their function and the conditions of places and times, and by which they can provide for the necessities of their life as well as for the equitable payment of those whose services they need.
§2. Provision must also be made so that they possess that social assistance which provides for their needs suitably if they suffer from illness, incapacity, or old age (Can. 281).
Since canon 281 falls under Chapter three of Book II of the 1983 Code, which focuses on the obligations and rights of clerics, it must be examined in that context. Because my focus in this post is on priests, I use the term ‘clerics’ to refer specifically to priests.
The first part of canon 281 §1 speaks of the right of clerics to remuneration because they dedicate themselves to ecclesiastical ministry. However, the Second Vatican Council and the 1983 Code omit the term ius (right), favouring less obligatory terms, namely digni sunt Presbyteri qui aequam recipiant remunerationem (priests deserve to receive an equitable remuneration) (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 20) and remunerationem merentur (they deserve remuneration)(Can. 281 §1). The Code, nevertheless, uses the term ius regarding the remuneration of laity devoted to the special service of the Church (Can. 231 §§1 & 2).
While rejecting the proposal to use the term ius, the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law affirms that the text of the canon is sufficient to establish the right itself while avoiding a term which places the sacerdotal ministry in a less appropriate economic context (Animadversiones Generales, De Populo Dei, Ex actis, 172).
The motive for this omission is further clarified in the use of the term ‘remuneration’. The Council Fathers intentionally choose the term remuneratio (remuneration) rather than merces (pay or salary) to avoid equating the ecclesiastical ministry with jobs and wages. This is because there could be situations in which the cleric’s right to adequate remuneration would have to give way for the salvation of souls – “which in the Church must always be the supreme law” (Can. 1752) (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani Secundi IV/VII, 226).
The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Texts corroborates this when it affirms that the Code uses the term remuneratio (remuneration) rather than stipendio (wage) because there is a “radical difference between the ‘remuneration’ given to a cleric and the salary or stipend paid to the laity: above all, it is not the quantity of services performed that needs to be recognised and proportionately compensated, but rather the person of the cleric, who offers his services, or should offer his services, for reasons other than those which would motivate the average labourer” (PCLT, Ricorso contro le norme diocesane circa il fondo sostentamento clero, 164).
Nonetheless, the concrete obligation to provide for priests is closely connected with the bond of incardination.
In other words, while a priest is incardinated to a diocese for whose service he is ordained (Can. 266 § 1) and the diocesan bishop is obliged to provide decent support and social assistance for him (Can. 384), canon 281 affirms that priests are entitled to remuneration by reason of their dedication to ecclesiastical ministry rather than by reason of incardination itself (cf. Can. 269, 1°). The remuneration of priests who are members of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life is determined by the proper norms of the institute or society (Can. 668).
Can a priest lose the right to remuneration?
The right to remuneration raises some inevitable questions: Are those not engaged in the ecclesiastical ministry entitled to remuneration? Can a priest lose his right to remuneration?
The responses are better explored through two categories that limit the exercise of orders: the imposition of a penalty and the declaration of an impediment to the exercise of a sacred order already received (Can. 1044).
The penalty of excommunication totally bars a priest from the communion of the faithful from which he subsequently “loses the title to the benefits of any dignity, office, function or pension held in the Church” (Can. 1331 § 2 n. 5). However, canon 1335 §2 provides that if medicinal penalties prohibit celebrating the sacraments or sacramentals or exercising the power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death.
Hence, an excommunicated priest loses the title to the stipulated ecclesiastical benefits, and because he no longer exercises ecclesiastical ministry, the basis for remuneration under Canon 281 §1 is absent. A priest under the penalty of interdict can still exercise his right to remuneration (Can. 1332 §1).
The penalty of suspension forbids a priest from exercising the power of orders and governance as well as rights and functions attached to an office (Can. 1333 §1). Canon 1333 §4 states that “a suspension prohibiting a person from receiving benefits, stipends, pensions, or any other such thing carries with it the obligation of restitution of whatever has been unlawfully received, even though this was in good faith”. Therefore, if the suspension is not one of the aforementioned, the priest is to be supported by the Church.
For expiatory penalties imposed on a priest, as long as the penalty is not dismissal from the clerical state (often called laicisation), provision must always be made so that the priest does not lack those things necessary for his decent support (Can. 1350 §1). Canon 1350 §2 adds that “if a person is truly in need because he has been dismissed from the clerical state, the Ordinary is to provide in the best way possible”. Nevertheless, this support can be reduced in size and form.
On the other hand, if a priest has been declared irregular for the exercise of orders already received (cf. can. 1044), he cannot licitly occupy an ecclesiastical office or perform a sacred duty except in the danger of death (cf. Can. 976). In such a case, the priest retains a claim to support by virtue of his incardination. However, because he cannot licitly exercise the ministry to which canon 281 §1 attaches remuneration, applying that provision during the period of irregularity requires careful consideration.
In summary, a priest loses the right to remuneration if he has been dismissed from the clerical state, although he may be temporarily supported if Christian charity requires it. A priest who is irregular for the exercise of orders still retains the right due to incardination, but the form and extent of support during the period of irregularity require careful consideration.
Social Assistance
While canon 281 §1 establishes that priests deserve remuneration because they dedicate themselves to ecclesiastical ministry, paragraph 2 provides that social assistance must be provided for such priests, which suitably provides for their needs if they suffer from illness, incapacity, or old age. In other words, while remuneration is tied to dedication to ministry, social assistance is connected to a priest’s incardination to a diocese or clerical institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life.
Therefore, the question of losing one’s right to social assistance cannot be analysed in the same way as the provisions on remuneration. This is because illness, incapacity, and old age require separate consideration, including the circumstances under which a priest’s relationship with the diocese, institute, or society ended. Hence, even if a priest has no claim to remuneration, the possibility of support based on Christian charity may remain.
Conclusion
The above shows that remuneration and the social welfare of priests are essential parts of the Church’s mission. Hence, decent support for ministers is one of the needs of the Church that the Christian faithful are obliged to support (Can. 222 §1).
Therefore, although it is an expense, the remuneration and social welfare of priests should not be treated merely as an expense, but as an essential element of the Church’s pastoral infrastructure.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
