Response on Tithes

[yablabo]

I opened a new thread to post my lengthy reply.  

Clearly, there is a lot of talking past each other going on here and also lack of distinctions.

The issue isn't a change of ownership. If it were that simple, one could donate to any immoral organization. Once the money is theirs, it's no longer my responsibility what they do with it, and it's not my responsibility to police them.

My original comment was addressing the idea of the abrogation of responsibility regarding paying tithes brought up by "Imperator Caesar Trump".  Tithing is bound both in scripture and tradition, solemn judgment, canon law and precept.  We are bound to render material support to the church, and traditionally that is described as 1/10th part of our first fruits (e.g., harvest).  Since fewer people own land and stock, and more have a regular earnings, it has also been applied to income.  

Tithing is not almsgiving or donation, and cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates.  

It appears that you are conflating the terms tithe and donation.  A donation is a free and voluntary gift given to a mediary specifically to conduct an activity of which you approve.  Since tithing is not the same as donating to any organization whatsoever, there is no room for comparison for donating specifically to an immoral organization.  

With monetary donations to organizations, accountability of how the money is spent is essential, because you will bear a moral culpability for how the money is spent.

No, the issue is material cooperation in supporting evil organizations or activities. This gets to the very reason why a person cannot donate money to immoral organizations like Planned Parenthood. Otherwise one could hold the absurd view that a pro-lifer could donate to Planned Parenthood with the hopes that the "good" activities of the organization are supported while still disapproving of the bad. It is a clear contradiction on many levels.

This is only the consideration if you are donating money or other material support.  This is not a consideration if you are tithing.  Planned Parenthood cannot require tithes, the Church can and does.

Tithes are not donations.

If bishops or bishops' conference tell me that they are going to distribute tithed money in a certain way, they are telling me their intentions, and their intentions are entirely relevant to what I give my money to since my tithed money is owed to them only to support them, not to support whatever organization they think is important to support.

The stated intention of the prelates in distribution of tithes may be dishonorable, but it is irrelevant to your requirement to tithe, i.e., provide for their material support.  The notion that it is permissible to withhold your tithes from your bishop (or to whomever they are lawfully due) has been condemned at the Third Lateran Council (under pain of loss of Christian burial) and at the Council of Constance (under pain of anathema) and at the Council of Trent (under pain of excommunication until restitution has been made).  The Council of Constance was in fact most clear in condemning the Wycliffite error that "tithes are purely alms, and parishioners can withhold them at will on account of their prelates’ sins."

It is also condemned at the Council of Constance to transmit tithes to a third party for their use instead of rendering tithes to those who are owed them.

The example of a farmer's market seller using his earnings to go to a prostitute is completely irrelevant to this discussion since you couldn't know what his intentions were unless he had a big sign in front of his stand saying "All proceeds go to support my fornication." The issue of federal taxes is also irrelevant since we don't have a choice in the matter except insofar as we attempt to support politicians or policies.

I disagree.  While you're not required to buy from a man, if you take his vegetables, you must pay him.  Likewise, if you are baptized, you must tithe to all who are owed them.  Also, like taxes, you do not have a choice in the matter of tithing.

While there is a requirement to support the Church, there is no specification as to how we do that. A bulk of the history of tithing deals precisely with how exactly do we offer support. If you're a farmer, do you offer your chickens' eggs? Maybe not in the 21st century. Here we're talking about programs that openly describe what they do with our money, so we enter the realm of material cooperation, which requires a modicum of consideration for how our money is used.

The error regarding tithes vs. alms or donations is throughout this.  Tithes are not your money.  You incur no guilt due to material cooperation in evil wrought by your prelate, as there is no material cooperation.

Again, tithes are not your money.

No one is talking about policing that money. Neither is anyone discussing withholding it entirely. But to pretend that the distribution of our tithed money is to be conducted without any accountability, in light of all the scandals, especially financial, that have gone on within the Church, is ridiculous. Parishioners have the right to demand financial accountability, at least in their weekly bulletin or on a page of their parish's or diocese's website. The clergy have the obligation to fulfill their duties. The point of giving them financial support is so that they can do their duties. It's not policing to ask for simple reassurance that our money given to support their livelihood is doing precisely that. What business or organization could survive without such basic procedures?

Those who receive tithes will stand before Our Lord in their particular judgments to give an account.  Those who withhold tithes from those they are owed will likewise have to give an account.

There is no right to demand to know how the priest or bishop spends his money, as the bishops and priests are not answerable to the laity as if we have some sort of moral authority over them.  There is a duty to tithe and the Church has a right to them...if you're claiming that the laity have a right to demand information on the use of tithes, what is the corresponding duty of the Church?  Where is this duty enshrined?

The Church is not a business, and therefore is not beholden to business accounting activities.  It would be wise and advisable to budget, keep books, and have a general outlook on perpetuity of funds, but it is not required anywhere in solemn judgment, scripture, tradition, canon law, precept, etc.

Basically, it's not your business and you have no moral requirement to know. 

As Jovan rightly pointed out, the Church does not tell us exactly how we must offer material support. In fact, you could go to a Novus Ordo parish, not put anything in the collection, and send your financial support to those parts of the Church you do approve of, such as good seminaries. When I was a seminarian, my Knights of Columbus council and local Serra Club sponsored portions of my tuition. These are concrete ways of providing material support with full transparency.

So, you're telling me that you can in good conscience fulfill your obligation to hear Mass, receive the blessed sacrament perhaps, and withhold material support to both to the priest and bishop who make this available to you?  Besides being condemned, that sounds like stealing, i.e., taking something for nothing.

[Imperator Caesar Trump]

You make a convincing case for why I shouldn't be Catholic. Let's see what others have to say. It's possible that it's a false religion, but I thought that wasn't true. 

It is true that I will sooner stop being Catholic than ever give money to the local archdiocese. I also would have to assume that I was right to do so if you are saying indirectly funding Planned Parenthood is what is required to remain in the Church. Seems pharasaical but what do I know. You sound pretty certain. I don't have any rejoinder other than maybe this is all not for me. I won't fund homo commie baby killers.

[josh987654321]

So, you're telling me that you can in good conscience fulfill your obligation to hear Mass, receive the blessed sacrament perhaps, and withhold material support to both to the priest and bishop who make this available to you?  Besides being condemned, that sounds like stealing, i.e., taking something for nothing.

The Priest and only the Priest (Provided he's no James Martin heretic). I agree that we should give toward our faithful Priests so they can obviously live and continue to administer the sacraments to us such as the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but I will not give a cent to the 'Church' or other ministry unless I know who is running it and they are transparent (i.e. not a James Martin heretic).

For example, any money that doesn't go to my Priest will highly likely end up toward the Australian 2020 Plenary Council which is full of outright heresy. Nobody should give a cent to fund that nonsense. Just the faithful Priests who administer the sacraments to live and continue their necessary work in these dark times.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You

[boredoftheworld]

You make a convincing case for why I shouldn't be Catholic. Let's see what others have to say. It's possible that it's a false religion, but I thought that wasn't true. 

It is true that I will sooner stop being Catholic than ever give money to the local archdiocese. I also would have to assume that I was right to do so if you are saying indirectly funding Planned Parenthood is what is required to remain in the Church. Seems pharasaical but what do I know. You sound pretty certain. I don't have any rejoinder other than maybe this is all not for me. I won't fund homo commie baby killers.

I can't "like" your response here because I don't like it but it does sum things up. If the bishop or the parish priest is spending the money I gave to the Church on hookers and blow that's his problem, if he's using it for public sin particularly sins that work against the mission of the Church then it's my problem. This pray, pay, obey mentality that yablabo advances is exactly and I mean EXACTLY why the sexual abuse crisis in the clergy is unstoppable. It's why churches were gutted and altars stripped. Now that the laity aren't too stupid to know what's going on we're being told we don't have the right to know what's going on and if we do find out we either must remain passively docile or cheer the wolves on as they devour our children. 

This is what happens when the predators interpret the rules. There's a bizarre movie called Snowpiercer where this is demonstrated  

The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls not the material enrichment and sexual gratification of the clergy. The sheep are not expected to stand idly by while they are butchered by hired hands. Most clearly we are not expected to heed the call of hired hands, we know the voice of our Shepherd. Our Lord says His sheep know the Shepherd and flee from the stranger and won't follow him... well... STOP FOLLOWING THE STRANGERS!

[Imperator Caesar Trump]

I think yabablo is sincere, but there are plenty of nu-Catholics who share her exact disposition as a way of brow-beating trads into submission on the one hand while glorifying the "priesthood of the laity" and ecumenism with other faiths on the other hand.  Normally, I would be dismissive of this sort of attitude, but again, I think she is sincere. 

What do you think about other things going on in the Church?  What about pachamama?  What about altar girls?  What about the contents of Vatican II?  I know that you only attend the Novus Ordo, so you must be fairly well disposed toward it all?  I just want to get a sense of this.  What about female deacons?  What about immigration? And because you didn't address it in the last thread, what about the SSPX? Your last point, on which your entire thesis certainly does not turn, was that not tithing constitutes a form of theft; but what if I only attend SSPX chapels?

This is not germane to the opening post, but I don't have much to add to it at this time.  Just curious.

EDIT: I guess the last question I'd throw at you just to pick your brain is this: What is your best argument against the position you've stated?

[ThatGladTrad]

Maybe we should start by taking a look at the concept of tithing. Firstly, tithing is not a religious law, it is an ecclesiastical law binding on the Jews (and at one point required of Catholics under pain of excommunication). The concept of tithing is very popular in America, however, where it was reintroduced by... The protestants.

So I'm sorry if I'm not sympathetic to your legalistic view of supporting your local Church...

[ServusDei]

I opened a new thread to post my lengthy reply...

Just as we were dispensed from the requirement of circumcision, tithing is not required of Catholics. The Church instead requires the Faithful to support it, which we do when we give (no matter how much) to the collection basket during the offertory.

Donations are an excellent means of charity, and it shouldn't be dismissed by "Tithing is not almsgiving or donation, and cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates."

As to "Tithing... cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates," if we have grounds to ascertain that any or significant part of donated money is going toward the payment for immoral licentiousness, then it is an act of complicity to donate. For example, if a parishioner of Fr. Martin's gives him money -- that the parishioner knows he'll use for sodomy -- then he is morally guilty of a grave and mortal sin.

We do not have to give money to a wolf in shepherd's garb.

[piscis]

Ok, lots of things! I sense still more talking past each other here.

Before I say anything, my continual impression has been--what point are you precisely trying to make? You seem to have been arguing about points that no one is actually asserting. For example, that we should withhold support for the Church entirely. No one has argued that. What people HAVE been arguing, or more exactly, expressing, is a concern about what is happening to their money in the Church and a hesitation to support obviously sinful structures (as JPII would call it) operating within the Church. Maybe the way they articulate that betrays certain incorrect principles, but how can you blame them? We're laity. We're not theologians. It's not up to us to have a finely nuanced understanding of these intricacies. We're just trying to make sense of a dark world. So I'm trying to envision a resolution to your taking issue and insisting on certain principles, and although I am trying hard, I just can't. I don't really know what you want, and as this back and forth goes on, I feel like I'm slowly going into an increasingly indistinct rabbit hole. I suspect from Imperator's responses that he shares a similar attitude about this. 

That being said, here's what I would say to all of that...

Granted, I conflated donating and tithing in an analogy in order to make a point about material cooperation in evil. I understand well the difference. The point was in either case, we ought to exercise circumspection in how our money is being used, regardless of whether it is owed in justice or not. You seem to reject the analogy as legitimate because tithes are owed in justice, a point I already affirm. Fair enough, but here we'll have to agree to disagree.

The past anathemas, excommunications, etc. of the ecumenical and local councils are all relevant to a proper understanding of canonical, doctrinal, and moral tradition, and of course, canon law articulates and protects certain aspects of the moral law, so they are never irrelevant in any given age. Nevertheless, the normal understanding of Canon 6 § 1 (1983 CIC) is that unless it is contained in current legislation, these past punishments are abrogated. This is why you don't even hear traditional priests talking about the anathemas of some past council as binding, not because they are unimportant, but because they are no longer binding.

The fact of the matter is, the Church is an institution that exists and works in the 21st century. Although the Church obviously isn't reducible to a mere business, the Church IS partly a business, with a defined identity, purpose, and structures, and on a civil level functions as one. As such, it must have procedures and infrastructure that are in accord with legitimate civil law. To take just one example, the San Francisco archdiocese recently went through a class action lawsuit that alleged that between 2008 to 2017 it failed to provide certain mandated health-care related contributions to some of its eligible employees. Regardless of the justice of the case, the fact is that the Church must operate within society and is public. As such, it owes in justice a certain amount of accountability and transparency that it is actually operating both civilly and morally for the sake of the common good, let alone the supernatural good. Hence, oh I don't know, the sex abuse scandals that have exploded on the scene? Or should we insist that this isn't really a matter for the laity? 

It is entirely my business to know if the parochial school that I may send my kids to, presumably paid partly by my tithes, is a moral environment with well-maintained grounds and competent staff, properly paid for by the Church. It is entirely my business to know if it's safe for my sons to altar serve under or go to confession to Fr. Joe, to whom I pay tithes so that he may continue to conduct an upright ministry. It is entirely my business to know if Fr. Joe is using tithes to pay for drugs, gay lovers, and sex toys, and whether you like it or not, it will become everyone's business if he dies while hooked up to a sex machine.

Since we're talking about the rights of the Church and of the laity, let's look at those rights as protected by current Canon Law. Two particularly seem relevant to this conversation:

Canon 212 § 3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

In other words, we are perfectly within our rights to call for transparency among the hierarchy, especially if this pertains to "the good of the Church."

So when you say:

There is no right to demand to know how the priest or bishop spends his money, as the bishops and priests are not answerable to the laity as if we have some sort of moral authority over them.

You're wrong, and you're confusing two different things. Requesting (or demanding) accountability is not asserting moral authority over anyone. This is a ridiculous claim. The assumption of mutual good will and cooperation for the common good, at the foundation of any good society, demand accountability. Regardless, Canon Law simply argues contrary to your point: it is within our rights and sometimes even duty to make known our concerns on matters which pertain to the good of the Church. Whether the hierarchy obliges is another issue. Asking for accountability isn't the assertion of moral authority over the hierarchy (although I readily grant that some may be motivated by this or acts as if they do have such authority); it's showing concern and taking steps to ensure the good of the Church when the hierarchy itself is failing to do so. We have every right to do so because Canon Law grants it. Period.

And also:

Canon 213: The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

The fact of the matter is, the clergy cannot withhold the sacraments just because the laity don't offer tithes, even if owed in justice. So to your question and point:

So, you're telling me that you can in good conscience fulfill your obligation to hear Mass, receive the blessed sacrament perhaps, and withhold material support to both to the priest and bishop who make this available to you?  Besides being condemned, that sounds like stealing, i.e., taking something for nothing.

Don't be that person! I never said any such thing. This is a perfect example of talking past each other. Every single person who would hesitate to agree with you has done so on the grounds that they wonder if their own Fr. Joe is properly confecting the Eucharist or giving the proper formula for absolution. The question is whether Father is even conducting his ministry, the very purpose of his life, and whether the tithes we give him are actually serving that purpose. For me, it's very simple: I give tithes to support my priests. Multiple times in my life I have received utterly invalid absolutions and have sat through Masses that began with, "In the name of the Mother, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." I'm not paying a single dime to such a priest who, for all I can plainly tell, is not conducting any valid ministry whatsoever. How can you seriously tell me or anyone that they would owe something to such a man? Besides, this guy happened to be a Jesuit, so it's not like he was short on cash.

Some of your other points seem pretty nitpicky, such as disagreeing with my point about the farmer's market seller. I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with there since I certainly wasn't claiming that if you buy a vegetable from him, you're no longer obligated to pay him for it. Not sure what that's about...

St. Thomas says tithes are owed partly due to natural law and partly due to the precept of the Church. Our Lord articulated the principle of natural law when He said that a worker deserves his pay. The precept of the Church is to protect this principle of justice and the priest's rights. Every consideration of tithing goes back to this principle: tithing is solely for the priest to be able to continue living and offering sacraments, which is the very purpose of his life. It is for nothing else. But everyone recognizes that it would be unjust for a worker who has NOT been doing his proper work to receive payment. Tithes aren't owed to "the Church," insofar as this means any organ of the Church whatsoever. They're owed to the clergy on the assumption that they are doing their job.

Your strange, localized notion that we owe tithes specifically to the priests and bishops of our own diocese requires a lot more work to prove. The fact is that the parochial setup is a convenient one and exists for historical reasons, but with the invention of the highway and especially with the crisis of the past 50 years, the idea that the laity are bound to a single parish for life and the very notion of a parish has come into serious debate. It has been a serious debate within pastoral theology for decades now, and I'm speaking of those strictly in the mainstream Church, not of traditionalists.

The problem with your vague notion of owed tithes is that the Church does not tell us how we are supposed to tithe. She, along with natural law, tells us why we tithe and that we must tithe out of justice. She does not tell us how. And no matter how many mental gymnastics you do, in light of the changing structures of society and the problems within the Church today, you cannot overcome this hurdle. 

But even if you reject that line of argumentation, there is another, namely, what moral theologians themselves tell us, which is that fulfilling this precept of the Church can be done not merely through offering money but also time and service to the upkeep of the parish. It depends on the ability and means of each parishioner to decide what is best in their circumstances.

All of that being said, I think the solution is actually a lot more flexible and depends on the situation a person finds himself. For me, God has blessed me with an easy way out: I live near an SSPX parish that I am perfectly happy to support. My parents are lucky too since they attend a reverent Novus Ordo parish with a fairly good parochial school that is very transparent with its finances. Many others may not be so lucky. Who am I to sit here and pronounce stringent moral requirements on complex matters for people in equally complex circumstances? I'm not a moral theologian, and I welcome being corrected on some point of canon law or moral theology. But it seems reasonable to me that if a worker is not earning his pay, then those tithes that I owe should go to someone who IS earning his pay, and that's as far as I will go.

[piscis]

I opened a new thread to post my lengthy reply...

Just as we were dispensed from the requirement of circumcision, tithing is not required of Catholics. The Church instead requires the Faithful to support it, which we do when we give (no matter how much) to the collection basket during the offertory.

Donations are an excellent means of charity, and it shouldn't be dismissed by "Tithing is not almsgiving or donation, and cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates."

As to "Tithing... cannot be withheld due to the sins of prelates," if we have grounds to ascertain that any or significant part of donated money is going toward the payment for immoral licentiousness, then it is an act of complicity to donate. For example, if a parishioner of Fr. Martin's gives him money -- that the parishioner knows he'll use for sodomy -- then he is morally guilty of a grave and mortal sin.

We do not have to give money to a wolf in shepherd's garb.

I think this brings out another point of confusion. The Church precept is for material support. She does not tell us HOW to give it. She does not dictate that it must be a tithe. Moral theologians offer many alternative ways to provide for the material upkeep of a parish and to support a priest.

[yablabo]

The past anathemas, excommunications, etc. of the ecumenical and local councils are all relevant to a proper understanding of canonical, doctrinal, and moral tradition, and of course, canon law articulates and protects certain aspects of the moral law, so they are never irrelevant in any given age. Nevertheless, the normal understanding of Canon 6 § 1 (1983 CIC) is that unless it is contained in current legislation, these past punishments are abrogated. This is why you don't even hear traditional priests talking about the anathemas of some past council as binding, not because they are unimportant, but because they are no longer binding.

Your conclusion here is absolutely false.

If it were true, it would apply even to St. Paul's anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

Matters of church law cannot abrogate the anathemas of the ecumenical councils.  Nothing undogmatises dogma.