Contents
Evolution of Priests’ Remuneration in the Church
The Remuneration and Social Assistance System in Nigeria
Sources of Income in the Church in Nigeria
Strengths of the Current System
Weaknesses of the Current System
Introduction
Last week focused on the canonical provision regarding priests’ right to remuneration and social welfare, concluding that remuneration and social welfare should not be treated merely as expenses but as essential elements of the Church’s pastoral infrastructure. Today’s post focuses on the remuneration system largely adopted in Nigeria. In this post, the term ‘parishes’ will include schools, hospitals, and other Church institutions. The term ‘parish priest’ will also include school principals and administrators of Church institutions.
Evolution of Priests’ Remuneration in the Church
While the social assistance system is relatively a modern project, remuneration is described in the Old Testament priesthood. Since priests and Levites dedicated themselves to rendering religious service to the people, the Lord ordered that lands should not be allocated to them for work; instead, they were to receive tithes from other tribes and keep for themselves some portion of the sacrificial offering (cf. Numbers 18:20-24; Deut 18:1-8). In the New Testament, Christ willed that those who exercise the priestly ministry should live by it (Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7, 1 Cor 9:14). The early Church did not adopt the tithing system of the Jews because the apostolate of that time was itinerant, and the Christian community made donations for the poor, widows and orphans (cf. Acts 4:32-35). Clerics were counted among the poor of the Church if they had no means of sustenance. They were also to avoid accumulating riches and adopt the spirit of evangelical poverty.
From the fifth century to the Second Vatican Council, priests were principally remunerated through the benefice system. In a benefice system, a priest is given the right to receive revenues from a Church property. Unfortunately, the benefice system led to financial inequities among priests, thereby subjecting the priestly ministry to ecclesiastical ambition, rivalry, and avarice. Moreover, over time, the Church lost revenue from property confiscated by the government. Consequently, the 1983 Code reformed the benefice system to avert these difficulties and provide equitable remuneration for priests (cf. Canons 281, 384, 1274).
The Remuneration and Social Assistance System in Nigeria
During the missionary era, priests’ remuneration came from foreign funding and local support. The remuneration system of priests in traditional religion was largely incorporated into the Church, alongside the Annual Mission Collection levied on all the faithful to finance parishes and schools. When the missionaries fell sick or retired, they normally returned to their home countries.
When indigenous priests were ordained, they were also supported through these two sources, and because they were few, their social welfare was easily sorted. When most foreign missionaries left Nigeria, the remuneration of priests became largely dependent on local support. Foreign donations were now directed to building churches, schools, hospitals, supporting the seminary, and other mission initiatives.
Although each diocese in Nigeria today has its own priest remuneration system, these systems are largely structured around the benefice system, which the 1983 Code officially abrogated.
As a result, Nigerian dioceses do not operate a system in which a diocesan institute for remuneration pays all priests according to the conditions of time and place (cf. Can. 281 §1). The prevailing structure is for the parish priest to pay himself, while the diocese sets a minimum payment for the assistant, which the parish priest pays from the institutional funds. Some assistants are paid more, depending on the parish’s financial capacity, the relationship with the parish priest, and other factors.
Regarding social assistance, canon 1274 §2 states: “Where social provision for the benefit of clergy has not yet been suitably arranged, the conference of bishops is to take care that there is an institute which provides sufficiently for the social security of clerics.” Dioceses have a form of health insurance scheme, independent of or somewhat connected to Salus Trust HMO, the National Health Insurance Scheme, or another private health insurance scheme. Retired priests benefit from Opus Securitatis or some other diocesan initiative. Retired, sick, or incapacitated priests reside in the Father’s house or in priests’ retirement homes in dioceses that have them. The parish where they reside and the diocese support them.
Sources of Income in the Church in Nigeria
- Stole fees (jura stolae) – money a cleric receives for celebrating sacraments and sacramentals
- Mass offering (previously referred to as Mass stipends) – money given to a priest who is obliged to celebrate the Mass in accordance with the donor’s intentions (ad intentionem dantis)
- Offertory collection – the collection made during the presentation of gifts at Mass
- Thanksgiving offerings – a heritage from the traditional religion in which offerings are made to God through the priest
- Monthly Subvention by the Catholic Men Organisation and the Catholic Women Organisation
- Annual subvention from the Holy See to support seminaries
- Income from the harvest and bazaar festival
- Tithes, which are regulated by some dioceses
- Private gifts to support the Church or directly to the priest. Unless expressly stated otherwise, offerings made to superiors, parish priests, and the bishop, even if private, are presumed given to the religious community, parish, or diocese (Can. 1267 §1)
- Tuition fees from students in Catholic schools and payment for hospital services
- Revenue from other investments
Strengths of the Current System
Without prejudice to the obligation of the diocesan bishop to ensure that provision is made for the decent support and social assistance for his priests (Can. 384), the current system relieves dioceses of the financial burden of directly supporting their priests. Many dioceses have several ongoing, capital-intensive infrastructure projects, and they have no income taxes or income-generating patrimony to provide the liquidity needed to pay priests monthly.
Secondly, since there is no cap on the official annual income of a parish priest, and given Nigeria’s overall economic situation and its attendant challenges, priests are incentivised to work harder. Even if economically motivated, such dispositions have been essential to pastoral fruitfulness.
Third, because care homes are still uncommon in Nigeria, the social assistance system, in which retired and sick priests live in a parish, prevents these priests from feeling abandoned. In principle, the host priest acts like a child or brother, caring for his father or brother.
Weaknesses of the Current System
Income inequity is the major weakness of the current remuneration system. For instance, a young parish priest working in a small but wealthy parish earns much more than an older priest in a large but poorer parish. Therefore, the system fails to guarantee equitable income for priests, taking into account the nature of their office, the conditions of time and place, and years of priestly ministry (cf. Can. 281 §1).
Due to the financial benefits of working in a wealthy area, this inequity has led to rancour and competition among priests, manifested in subtle ways, such as slandering fellow priests and exaggerating one’s achievements before the bishop. There are also lobbying efforts and bribery attempts directed to bishops and superiors to remain in choice parishes. This argument is based on statements of disappointment, sadness or anger from some priests, such as “After all I did for the bishop or superior, he still posted me to this place” (See Post 176: Bribery of one who exercises an office, ministry, or function – 11 November 2024).
Furthermore, since it is the prerogative of the diocesan bishop to appoint priests to ecclesiastical offices (Can. 157) and given that the bishop is bound to send priests to wealthy and poor, rural and urban parishes (Can. 383 §1; 387), the income inequity among priests has ruptured the fraternal relationship which should exist between priests and their bishop (Can. 384). This is because the bishop is erroneously seen as the one who holds the key to riches, and the parish he assigns a priest to reflects the extent to which he finds favour with that priest. Sometimes priests in poor parishes privately resent the bishop, accusing him of favouritism. Consequently, many priests sycophantise the bishop, while others are reticent to offer him sincere advice (privately or in a council) even when he has explicitly sought their counsel.
Another weakness of the current remuneration system is that it creates a conflict of interest for priests in their ministry. In other words, since priests depend largely on what they get from people, priests, in a bid to please their parishioners, deviate from established liturgical rites, relax some requirements and conditions for the reception of sacraments, and are reticent to preach against certain moral values which contradict the Catholic faith. Moreover, priests tend to associate more with the rich than with the poor in a bid to earn more.
While retired and sick priests prefer to stay in parishes rather than in retirement homes, this arrangement has weaknesses, including increased marginal costs for special facilities in these fathers’ houses and for transporting healthcare workers who visit them, as well as fuel and time costs for the priest taking them to the hospital. A centralised location makes it easier to provide specialised healthcare for their age and condition and attend to health emergencies, without overburdening the host priests and parishes.
Furthermore, since some diocesan health insurance and welfare systems may not cater for all sick and old priests’ needs, priests fall back on their families and friends, something that the CBCN advised against. This reality fuels priests’ desire to seek more money because, given what is currently happening to sick and retired priests, they know that when they are sick or retired themselves, assistance from the diocese will not be sufficient. This raises the question of the extent to which canon 286 applies in the Church in Nigeria. Canon 286 reads: “Clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, for their own advantage or that of others, except with the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority”.
Finally, although priests under ecclesiastical penalty may have caused grave scandals, the current system makes it difficult to continue supporting them by right or out of Christian charity.
In summary, the current system of remuneration and social assistance undermines, among priests, “the bond of brotherhood and prayer”, the desire “for cooperation among themselves”, and ultimately “the building up of the body of Christ” (can 275§ 1).
Conclusion
Remuneration and social welfare of priests are not mere expenditures. Instead, they are an essential aspect of pastoral infrastructure and pastoral charity. While the current remuneration and social welfare system in the Church in Nigeria is effective, its weaknesses suggest room for improvement to ensure equitable income for priests and better social welfare for elderly and sick priests. Next week’s post offers a proposal.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
