A reader writes:
Pretty simple question — but one to which I’ve never heard an intelligent answer. My parish charges $100.00 each to put a child through one season of religious ed (what we would have called "Sunday School" in my days as a Baptist). Shouldn’t this be considered simony? After all, the passing of the faith down to the next generation is part of the Church’s core mission — not some kind of extra added service, like a camping trip. It’s part of her duty, not something for which she may legitimately demand payment, to my way of thinking…
(I’m asking this, Jimmy, because my still-Baptist parents are scandalized by the very idea; they hear the ghost of Tetzel in this request, the coins still jingling in his cup. They’ve never heard of simony per se but they do definitely see the principle. Ironically, however, they see nothing at all wrong with an church counselor who happens to have some kind of psychology degree insisting $50 an hour for his services. I thought this was simony even when I was still a Baptist!).
I know how one might seek to defend this on canonical grounds. The 1917 Code contained a definition of simony, but this definition was eliminated from the 1983 Code as the result of a policy seeking to eliminate definitions from the new Code. The 1917 definition thus doesn’t have legal force any more, but it does shed light on the kind of things that are classified as the canonical crime of simony. Here’s the def:
Canon 727
§1. By divine law, simony is the studied will to buy or sell fo ra temporal price an intrinsically spiritual thing, for example, Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, indulgences, and so forth, or temporal things so connected with spiritual things that without the spiritual they cannot exist, for example, ecclesiastical benifices, and so on, or a spiritual thing that is, even in part, the object of a contract, for example, the consecration of a chalice consecrated in sale.
One might look at this and say, "Okay, when the 1917 Code refers to ‘things,’ it has in mind something more concrete than Sunday school education"–or one would want to find some way to distinguish Sunday school education from the examples of simony listed here.
My trouble is that I’m not convinced (a) that it is possible to find a relevant distinction here and (b) my instincts tell me that charging for basic instruction in the Christian faith is just wrong.
Now, if the parish is charging a fee for optional teaching aids that a child is not required to have (e.g., workbooks or something) then I can see that.
I also can see having a suggested donation that will be used to pay the teachers for their time then I can also see that ("The worker is worth his wages," after all).
I perhaps could see charging a fee for an advanced course in something that is not basic catechesis.
But if they are really charging for basic instruction in the faith then it seems to me to be simony.
There’s a balance to be struck in the proclamation of the gospel, and Jesus illustrates that balance in the commission to preach that he gives to the disciples in Matthew 10. In verse 8, he tells them "Freely you have received, freely give." He then tells them in verses 9 and 10 not to take money but to depend on the donations they are given, saying that the laborer deserves his food.
It thus seems to me that the logical way to proceed for a parish would be to solicit donations for basic religious education but not to charge for it. The latter would strike me as simony.
So I’m with your parents on that one–assuming that’s what’s happening here and that it isn’t a misunderstanding of the parish’s suggested donation policy.
(NOTE: If the parish is committing simony, one would hope that they aren’t compounding the sin by refusing to grant waivers to those children whose parents can’t or won’t pay.)
Even from a worldly sense, this strikes me as an extremely counterproductive way to make money. Parents and children are ideally going to become your big huge church donors of the future; but if you make them pay for what should be free, why should they feel grateful enough to donate big and huge?
If you give the bare minimum, you’re going to get the bare minimum back. Or so it would seem to me.
Furthermore, if people “know” that basic religious education isn’t free, it will discourage the poor or the lukewarm from even thinking of sending their kids.
Unless you were both poor and exceedingly virtuous and proactive, I would think that going to the parish and asking for a break on fees would be extremely humiliating and a lot of trouble. I wouldn’t want to show other people in my parish my paycheck, would you?
If the students who attend Catholic school during the day are paying ‘tuition’, I don’t see why the after-hour, public school student shouldn’t also pay. They are using the same facilities.
I agree with Barbara. Something seems to be missing from the analysis. Folks pay to send their kids to Catholic school explicitely to teach, and encourage the faith. The Catholic culture, religion classes, etc., are the fundamental difference between the Catholic and public school. How is this any different from the CCD classes on Sunday?
I was a catechist at my Parish, and belonged to the Cathechist Yahoo group. This is a discussion that has come up recently there – if your parish charges, how much.
My parish charges a small fee – $40 for one child, $70 for a family – and then offers “scholarships” if the family can’t pay. The fee is for the textbooks, paper for copies, and craft supplies. The cathechists are all volunteers.
I, personally, don’t see a problem with being charged a fee because as a homeschooler and a girl scout troop leader, I know how much textbooks, paper and craft supplies cost. The church isn’t making any money off of this endeavor, and may not be covering the costs.
There is also the value argument – “I paid for this class, you are darn well going to get up and go to it.” or “Oh, it’s free, it must not be very good.” Not a very good argument for something that teaches the faith, but an argument that is made.
Babysitting.
We’ve lost sight of the evangelical mission of our church, and people who volunteer resent being Sunday morning babysitters.
Charging for CCD is a way for the DRE to “thin out” parents who wish to use/abuse the CCD program for Sunday morning babysitting.
A brief part of Catholic Encyclopedia covers some distinctions.
Source
The $100 seems to fall under reimbursement for the cost of preparing a catechumen. Your typical parish member wouldn’t find this burdensome. It is no where near the cost of an annulment. But take heart, after school daycare would cost about $300/child/week.
I know my parish charges for religious education and has a waiver process for those who can not afford it. I think it is somewhere between $40 and $100 (my kids aren’t old enough for me to have investigated that yet). I had never thought about it in the past but after reading this thread I think I’ll be asking some questions of the very good people who run the program.
On a related topic, an interesting comparison came to me. What would everyone think if a parish charged for their RCIA process? As a facilitator in that group I know that we spend thousands of dollars every year on workbooks, photocopies, retreats and weekly refreshments. It would probably work out to about $100 per Catechumen per year. It seems to me that charging for RCIA would cause lots of people to ask questions…
Finally, I don’t like the Catholic elementary school comparison as you’re getting far more than just the basic catechesis at an all day school. From a financial perspective it is more fair to compare them to a non-religious private school than to the religious ed. program, as religious ed. is a fairly small percentage of what is taught in these schools (sadly usually too small a percentage). Along those lines, Catholic schools are usually cheaper than other private schools mostly because they are subsidized by the parish. One could argue that the discounted cost/subsidy accounts for that “free” basic catechesis becing included in the school day.
Oops, one more thing: One way to avoid the free daycare aspect is to “require” parental participation. Having weekly sessions where the parent is “required” to attend with the child makes it so that the benefits of manipulating the program for free daycare is outweighed by the time commitment of participating. (I put “require” in quotes as when push comes to shove, as Jimmy has pointed out, you can not refuse the Sacraments to a kid who has been attending class but their parents refuse to. That doesn’t change the fact that you can put a great deal of pressure on them regarding the importance/need of attending.)
I should add that I’m not saying that fees and such are necessarily prudent. I think Simony is a serious offense, and the charge should not be made lightly. There is no supernatural promise attached to R.E. A case can be made for a loose attachment to supernatural things such as not being able to receive an indulgence b/c you didn’t get R.E. and therefore can’t go to confession. One could make the case that they are selling the Eucharist, but even that would be a stretch considering what is considered okay to indirectly charge a person to enter a convent (see my citation above.)
The idea that the Church should get its support primarily from festivals, bingo, and raffles strikes me as more offensive then requiring a meager $100 for R.E. When people don’t voluntarily support the Church which they are obligated to do anyway, how is the Church supposed to support these programs?
You know, I find it remarkable that after thousands of years of free religious education — even to streetkids — only Catholics in America find it necessary to charge for basic religious preparation and instruction. Boyhowdy, are we poor.
I can feel the love from St. John Bosco right now.
The CCD teachers always work for free, so that’s no sort of cost. Furthermore, I am forced to remind folks that there was in fact plenty of education before there ever were such things as expensive RE workbooks.
So if your parish is too skinned to afford workbooks and such for the kids, then you’re just going to have to buy a pack of notebook paper, pass out pencils, and have the kids copy off from stuff written on the blackboard or an overhead.
So then you won’t get to spend as much time boring the poor kids to death with non-essentials, will you? Heavens, the CCD teacher might actually have to talk to the kids. Might have to teach!
Maureen, who thought her CCD workbooks were mostly useful for doodling and calligraphy space, as the useful Catholic information quotient was low. However, it did allow her to ignore the teacher in favor of filling in every “e” and “o” with pencil.
Ugh! Is CCD a requirement or is there a DIY method?
Maureen, regarding the ‘free babysitting’ – Every time I go to sign a kid up for catechism I’m accused of looking for free babysitting, when in fact I am actually wanting my children to learn the faith in a setting with other children. Last year I pulled 2 kids out because of this accusation, and this year when I went to sign them up I got the same thing, so I am not signing them up. I am catechising them at home with our homeschooling (which I had done anyway, but I wanted them to get to know the other people in the parish.)
Besides, who cares if they are there for free babysitting??? It’s an opportunity to teach the faith ! I don’t get it.
Charging for the truth is repugnant. I’m not used to it in my faith. There are vast differences between a school, where religion is *also* taught, and a religious education class. Jesus didn’t charge a fee for workbooks.
I surely hope that this is not a serious discussion.
The ease of condemning a parish for charging for RE does not excuse those that do so with coming up with a viable alternative. Yes, ideally the tithe, if even that terrible thing were needed, would support all the works of mercy and instruction. We would live in a world with free clinics for the poor and free Catholic schools again. This is not the reality. Particularily in the North and the East, you will find that your typical parish is not self sufficient. Churches are consolidating, and the priest shortage is not the only reason for it.
Can RE be done cheaply? To an extent it can be, but there are other costs. Those classrooms where they meet aren’t free. The heat is not free. The liability insurance certainly isn’t free and hasn’t gotten cheaper in this litigious society. People who complain about $2 a week to educate their children most likely aren’t throwing $50 a week into the offeratory. (That is 10% of a $26,000 salary.)
Are there poor people? Most certainly. The way to provide for them is not to get this entitlement mentality. If those that are able continue to refuse to provide, churches will continue to close. Then, numerous poor people are denied the Sacraments, let alone RE. How does that help the poor person? Finally, I simply refuse to believe that some RE director will refuse a child if the parents come and say they simply cannot afford it. When that happens, that is the time to be offended. Or, it might be time to open up your checkbook.
The introduction to the Catechism of Trent (tanbooks.com) has in interesting bit from the Council of Florence, which points out that the Catholic education of children is a good due parents, at no cost.
put that in your social justice pipe and smoke it; lets start at home, ok?
Jimmy,
Your correspondent’s non-Catholic friends have every right to be scandalized. Ideally, there should not be a charge for CCD. They would probably be way more scandalized, however, if they knew how feebly Catholics (in this country at least) financially support their parishes, and in that case they might understand why some parishes feel the need to charge. We Catholics could learn something from our Protestant friends in this regard.
I hope everybody rending their garments over this supports their parishes.
Ken–
I have to object to the “parent participation” requirement you suggested. For some parents, that would be much more of an impediment to religious education than a stipend to cover the cost of materials. I have seven kids, whose ages range from 11 down to 1. I have never had any sort of nanny available to me, and usually have to rely on the kindness of in-laws to mind the kids if I need to get out for a dental appointment, etc. I have never, for reasons I hope are obvious, done any kind of “parent participation” anything with my kids. I’ve signed them up for activities, be it pre-school, CCD, swimming, etc., when they were big enough to attend without a parent, according to the program rules. That’s not “looking for babysitting,” that’s just the reality of a large family.
Regarding the whole money question– my parish used to charge a very nominal fee (I think $5 or $10 per kid.) When a new pastor was installed, he revamped the system to reflect the actual costs of running the program– I think on the order of $25 or $35 per child, with the clear understanding that no one would be turned away for inability to pay. Frankly, I prefer the new approach. Our program certainly isn’t extravagant by any means, but it still does cost something to run, and I don’t mind that we’re asked to help cover it. Oh yeah, and my husband and I actually do try to tithe… Never quite hit 10%, but we usually get pretty close.
It occurs to me that cradle Catholics may not have a vivid sense of the contrast which is causing the scandal. Most Americans have multiple churches COMPETING for the privilege of taking their kids to Sunday School! Church members actually knock on their doors, leave hundreds of dollars worth of promotional material, and BEG to teach their children the faith (or some approximation to it) TOTALLY GRATIS. In many towns, whole fleets of buses can be seen prowling suburban streets on Sunday mornings (diesel is pushing $3.00 a gallon these days, mind you) picking up kids, carrying them to Sunday School for a hour and a half, and then driving them back home again…heavily laden with coloring pages, song books, and pocket New Testaments. Nobody hits them or their parents up for one red cent. And it’s not because these churches have plenty of money to throw around and one place is as good as another to them. No, evangelization/catechesis is a PRIORITY to these people, God love ’em, and it isn’t to us. Bottom line.
Charging for CCD = simony?
Jimmy Akin has a post with some good comments about the practice of charging for CCD. Jimmy seems to think that the practice amounts to simony, which I think is a bit extreme, considering how many parishes are strapped for…
Does simony require a profit motive? It seems to me, although not explicitly stated, that it does. Its one thing to charge a fee to cover direct expenses (maybe even some overhead), but another to turn a service into a profit center. I think that most fees associated with religious ed (and other “services”) are merely there to defray costs, not turn a profit. My daughter is prepraing for confirmation and they have a “fee” for the classes our parish requires for confirmation preparation. Its not exhorbitant; but its not gratis either.
This quote stikes me:
“After all, the passing of the faith down to the next generation is part of the Church’s core mission — not some kind of extra added service, like a camping trip.”
Well, according to the Church, passing on the faith to the next generation is the responsibility of the PARENT, which should be supported by the Church. What we really need is free classes for the parents in the faith so that they can teach their children. If they want someone else to do it for them (even the Church), then just maybe they should compensate them for it.
That being said, my parish charges $15/kid and $30/family (if you sign up on time, it goes up to $40/family later). I don’t know if the church budget is subsidising these classes, or if they are just that frugal with what they use. They never turn anyone away for lack of ability to pay. I think that maybe the issue isn’t so much the fact that parishes are charging for these things, but that the parish the questioner is talking about is charging $100. After all, if they were saying something like “we require a $20 per child donation for supplies” then maybe this would never have come up…
John wrote:
“..according to the Church, passing on the faith to the next generation is the responsibility of the PARENT, which should be supported by the Church.” Problem here, John, is that Catholic parents are both in the Church and part of the Church. They acquire this responsibility to catechize their children by virtue of their baptism, which is what made them part of the Church. As for the Church’s responsibility to teach (not just our own kids but everyone) it comes direct from Jesus, not me: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19-20). Would we charge people for the cost of putting on a Mass before we let them take the Eucharist? And yet the Gospel is just as much the Word of God as the consecrated elements.