Table of Contents
Introduction
Last week’s post focused on the current priests’ remuneration and social assistance system largely operating in Nigeria. It concluded that while the current remuneration and social welfare system in the Church in Nigeria is effective, its weaknesses leave room for improvement to ensure equitable income for priests and better social welfare for elderly and sick priests.
Today’s post proposes a template that could help various dioceses, according to their peculiarities, develop a system that fits their situation and ensures equitable remuneration and social welfare for priests, in line with the provisions of canon 281 §§1-2.
One must emphasise at the outset that the interest is not to guarantee equal income for priests. This is impossible. Instead, the focus is on equitable income, “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” (Can. 281 §1).
Given the current realities of priests’ income and expenditure in Nigeria, the realistic direction would be to integrate remuneration and social welfare. Hence, the focus is on increasing income or, if more opportune, subsidising the expenditure of some priests to improve overall income and ensure equity among priests working in a diocese.
The template is based on the recommendation that each diocese should have “a special institute which is to collect goods or offerings for the purpose of providing, according to the norm of can. 281, for the support of clerics who offer service for the benefit of the diocese” (Can. 1274 §1), and on the provision that “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” (Canon 1274 §2). This institute could be a diocesan commission established for this purpose.
Fundamental principles
Just as ten principles were adopted during the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, principles are also necessary in any design framework that helps a diocese. Seven principles guide this template.
- The principle of equity seeks to increase income or subsidise expenditure (overall income) to guarantee equity for priests considering the nature of their office and the conditions of time and place, while allowing the diocese to establish additional criteria, such as years of priestly ministry or the nature and demands of pastoral assignment. Based on this principle, the reform would discourage competition among priests for wealthier parishes and schools.
- The principle of transparency helps ensure that the acquisition and administration of funds by the commission are governed by clear, objective and measurable criteria, thereby promoting credibility and trust among those who contribute to it.
- The principle of pastorality seeks to reduce financial pressures that could create incentives for priests to deviate from established liturgical rites, relax certain requirements for the reception of the sacraments, relate disproportionately to wealthier parishioners, or hesitate to preach on moral issues that may affect their financial support.
- The principle of sustainability ensures that any proposed system can be maintained in the long term, particularly in light of the growth in the number of priests, donor fatigue, the decline in religious practice and affiliation, and the socio-economic situation of Nigeria.
- The principle of participation ensures that the bishop, priests, parishes and other ecclesial institutions participate, according to their circumstances, in providing the funds which would guarantee adequate overall income. This fits into the doctrine of communion, co-responsibility, and synodality. An example is the Mission Sunday collection in mission territories, wherein mission territories receive annual support from the same pool they contribute to.
- The principle of subsidiarity seeks to maintain the autonomy parishes, schools, and hospitals need to work effectively. Too much centralisation discourages dedication to work, undermines pastoral innovation and threatens the self-worth of priests. The commission does not replace local administration. This corresponds with the subsidiarity-integrated centralisation model extensively discussed over the past weeks.
- The principle of legality (being in accordance with the law) and legal certainty (assurance that the law will be applied consistently, stably and transparently over time) will ensure that certain rights and privileges regarding the overall income of priests and the running of the rectory are defined to avoid conflicts. The institute’s statutes, eligibility criteria, appeals/review mechanisms, financial obligations, and administration also need legal definition. The spirituality of canon law is indispensable here.
Structure and Administration
Given the complexity of administering separate structures for clerical support and social security, a diocese may find it advisable to establish one commission to coordinate and ensure equitable overall income for priests. If deemed opportune, the diocese can establish the commission in a form that can obtain recognition under Nigerian civil law (cf. can. 1274 § 5). The commission could also be divided into two departments: parish and school, to accommodate the different dynamics of parish and school administration.
Based on the direction of Pope Paul VI in Ecclesiae Sanctae, the bishop is to administer this commission with the assistance of some priests and, if possible, lay experts in economic matters (Ecclesiae Sanctae, I, n.8). The diocesan finance officer (cf. can. 494 §3) and, where schools are included in the system, the priest responsible for diocesan education (cf. can. 806 §1) should be represented in the administration or relevant committees. If necessary, one could also incorporate a lawyer into the commission to handle legal matters related to contracts and the acquisition of goods.
Funding
Funding is premised on the grading of parishes and schools. This grading can be challenging if not done properly, and there can never be a one-size-fits-all structure in Nigeria because rural and urban differences and tribal peculiarities affect the Church’s income. When grading, one should consider the resident population, offertory collection from those residents, and the apparent strength of the Catholic Diaspora.
Therefore, the selection committee should include the Finance Council and the Deans (Vicars Forane), the Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar for Clergy, and the priest in charge of diocesan education. The larger number helps provide more information about the peculiarities of various parts of the diocese (See Post 260– Understanding an Area in Pastoral Ministry – 22 June 2026).
The decision-making process also uses data analysis, drawing on parish and school data over time and using multi-year averages as metrics to evaluate strengths (See Post 275: Subsidiarity-integrated Centralisation and Catholic Education – 5 October 2026). The cost of ministry also matters, as a parish earning a huge income may also spend a lot on recurrent expenditure. A parish collecting ₦10m in an expensive urban environment isn’t necessarily in a better financial position than one collecting ₦7m in a much cheaper rural environment.
The criteria for grading and the grading itself should be reviewed every five years by law. Hence, the criteria should be flexible to avoid a situation where a wealthy Diaspora no longer contributes, or where a particular priest’s charisma attracts funds that may drop when he is transferred.
Funding of the commission is based on grades. For instance, there could be four grades: Grade A (high-income), Grade B (moderate-high income), Grade C (middle-income), and Grade D (low-income). The commission will receive quarterly or annual contributions. All parishes and schools should contribute, no matter how little, because it fits the principle of participation.
Each diocese decides how parishes and schools raise the money they send to the commission. It could be a percentage of offertory collection, stole fees, tuition fees, or annual harvest. Priests working in other institutions should contribute from their salary. Where appropriate and in accordance with diocesan norms, contributions from priests serving outside the diocese may also form part of the commission’s revenue. The diocese can also conduct annual drives to raise funds. In line with the principle of participation and the bishop’s obligation towards priests (Can. 384), the bishop could also contribute, where appropriate, from gifts received in accordance with the provisions of canon 1267 §1.
Another source is the temporal goods of deceased diocesan priests. The diocese could establish norms encouraging priests to provide for the commission in their wills, while respecting the requirements of canonical and civil succession law. Donations made to the priests’ association for priests’ welfare, or given at ceremonies, should also go to the commission, with a percentage given to those present to aid their transportation. This should also be legalised to guarantee compliance.
Finally, the commission can invest some funds and rent out available property. Investments should be diversified according to the commission’s liquidity requirements, with sufficient assets maintained in readily accessible instruments to meet foreseeable remuneration and welfare obligations. Investments should generally be low-risk, given the need to protect the commission’s capacity to meet remuneration and welfare obligations amid Nigeria’s economic volatility. These will require the advice of an investment banker and a lawyer. Returns from such investments could improve the existing pool.
Beneficiaries
Since priests’ material circumstances in the Church in Nigeria remain significantly connected to the particular parishes, schools and offices in which they serve, a subsidiarity-integrated centralisation framework for priests’ overall income is more adaptable than a fully centralised payment structure.
Hence, diocesan dynamics determine the beneficiaries and not all active priests working in the diocese are eligible for support. Since the purpose is to guarantee equitable overall income, the focus is on priests working in poorer areas or priests in great financial difficulty through no fault of their own.
What plays out in an all-rural diocese differs from what happens in an urban-rural diocese. What happens in a poor diocese differs from what happens in a wealthier diocese. Dioceses with a wealthy diaspora differ from dioceses where residents generate most funds.
Data is indispensable in choosing beneficiaries, and the choice depends on the metrics the diocese establishes. Hence, diocesan support could directly support priests working in rural or poorer parishes monthly or quarterly to compensate for shortfalls. Support could also cover their annual retreat fees and health insurance premiums. Priests working in some places could receive quarterly or annual subvention to support car repairs. The commission can, on request, and if considered opportune, support a priest for a major car repair or car replacement.
The commission can also provide support in accordance with diocesan norms to priests whose circumstances, including restrictions arising from canonical penalties, result in a loss of ordinary income.
Social Assistance
The importance of having a commission is particularly clear regarding social assistance. The commission can pay for the health insurance of retired priests in retirement homes, including those residing in parishes. The commission can also intervene when major illnesses occur that burden the diocesan health insurance scheme. Given that the contributory pension scheme is not efficient in Nigeria, the commission can also pay these priests monthly to support their welfare. If necessary and opportune, priests can contribute specifically for this while still in active service. The commission’s involvement reduces the burden on the parishes where they reside, making it easier for the host parish priest to invest more in their welfare.
Conclusion
The existing remuneration system in Nigeria has its strengths, especially in promoting pastoral innovation, yet inequity in remuneration and social welfare and the consequent financial pressures and negative effects on relationships in the presbyterium create a need for some reform. This post is merely a template that could help dioceses, considering their peculiarities, to restructure. The purpose is not to create equal income; this is impossible. Instead, the focus is to pool resources, through a subsidiarity-integrated centralisation, that guarantees some equity in overall income, thereby reducing unhealthy competition among priests and sycophancy, improving fraternal relationships between bishops and priests, promoting pastoral fruitfulness, and ultimately the holistic salvation of souls.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
