Sacramentals being used to benefit the church

[neener3672]

Is it ok to offer sponsorships of the hosts, wine, and the sanctuary candle? I’ve heard of sponsoring flowers for a Mass intention, but my church is now offering ministries and individuals the sponsorship rights to the hosts, wine and sanctuary lamp for every Mass. $25 per week for hosts, $40 per month for wine, and $10 per week for the sanctuary lamp. This seems sacrilegious to me. I’ve never heard of anything like this before anywhere. Can someone please clarify this for me?

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Welcome to CAF.

This seems sacrilegious to me.

Why? Unconsecrated hosts and wine are not sacred objects. I don’t think they are even sacramentals.

It sounds to me like this “sponsorship” program is a way for your parish to cover the costs of these articles. I haven’t heard of it being done this way before and it does sound strange to me, but given the info you’ve provided, I don’t see anything wrong with it.

 

[neener3672]

Thanks. I think I’m having a hard time because the hosts are to represent our offering to The Mass. Fruit of the vine, work of human hands. So I think it is strange to have it ‘sponsored’ by one person for another person. But to each his own. If it is the k with the church, then it’s ok. Just strange.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

I know of nothing that prohibits it, though I’ll stop short of saying it’s definitely okay because I don’t know how the opportunity is presented in your parish, nor how it’s executed one someone decides to go into “sponsorship.” But these elements have a cost that needs to be covered somehow.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Many parishes take sponsorships for the sanctuary lamp to be burned in memory of someone’s loved one for the week. It’s not anything unusual.

Haven’t seen any asking for host and wine sponsorships yet, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Sometimes people are more willing to give if they know what their money is going to, or if they think they can get a benefit like a prayer for their loved one out of the donation.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks. I think I’m having a hard time because the hosts are to represent our offering to The Mass. Fruit of the vine, work of human hands. So I think it is strange to have it ‘sponsored’ by one person for another person.

Having somebody step up to pay for the hosts and wine doesn’t make them any less “fruit of the vine” or “work of human hands”, nor does it make those items offered any less on behalf of the group when they are actually offered at Mass. The sponsorship is merely paying for the unconsecrated food items, sort of like paying the grocery bill.

 

[rightness]

The only thing prohibited is attaching indulgences to it. Although the practice of obtaining indulgences through donation is a good thing, like helping to build churches, to avoid future conflict because of Martin Luther, the Council of Trent condemned the practice.

I’m honestly not sure why this is even necessary. The congregation would simply tithe that much money if it’s needed. It definitely feels like a money scheme when talked about. As long as sponsors aren’t privileged with additional rights, which would constitute the Sins of Simony, then it’s okay, but it just feels weird to do it this way like some reoccurring bill.

 

[HeDa]

OP. In my parish there is a man who frequently travels to Poland to visit family and relatives. He checks with the sacristan if there is a need for more hosts as they are a lot cheaper there and he doesn’t mind bringing them with him and give them to the parish. Others are bringing with them wine suitable for Mass when they have visited convents or for example Spain. And some own shops and donate candles for the Mary statue. There are several donating their time to do dishes, clean, do repairs and garden work etc.

Does it matter when all the items are paid for, how or by who?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yeah, I’m willing to bet that with the number of Italian Catholics in my area, there are people donating wine to the churches on a regular basis and we just don’t hear about it.

 

[commenter]

Welcome to CAF.

Not everything that is permissable is prudent. In my parish they used to have a notice, that" the Sanctuary lamp this week is for the X family". When our current pastor came, he stopped the practice. I’m glad he did.

First, our focus in church should be on Christ, not “Christ and the X family”.

Second, what about the Y family, that can never afford to sponsor stuff at Mass? Should they be relegated to second class?

This is grossly imprudent for a parish, sort of "how low can we go towards Simony and still get away from it.

If they want to do sponsorships let small businesses and professionals who are supportive of the Church take add in bulletin so parishioners can patronize them. But nothing related to Mass!

If the X family spends a certain amount towards sponsoring the hosts, that is likely subtracted from their overall annual donations. Parishes in the long run don’t gain money, and they do lose credibility.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve never felt it took the focus off Christ or that the Church lost any credibility because the bulletin printed that the X family sponsored the sanctuary lamp or anything else. Somebody has to pay for the candle and it is not burning in honor of the X family, it is burning in honor of Christ.

Plus, in many churches, about half the stuff in the church has a plaque “in memory of so-and-so” on it. I just see it as a reminder to pray for so-and-so’s soul as the person is almost always long deceased.

Obviously some people notice and get all bothered by things that many other people ignore, don’t care, etc.

 

[Gorgias]

This seems sacrilegious to me. I’ve never heard of anything like this before anywhere.

It doesn’t sit particularly well with me, either, but it’s not “sacrilegious” in any way. After all, if the parish buys them, then the actual money for them has come from parishioner donations, right? So, what’s the problem with them being a particular donation from a particular person?

And, like others have said, this isn’t a case of “sacramentals for sale”.

 

[commenter]

neener3672:

This seems sacrilegious to me. I’ve never heard of anything like this before anywhere.

It doesn’t sit particularly well with me, either, but it’s not “sacrilegious” in any way. After all, if the parish buys them, then the actual money for them has come from parishioner donations, right? So, what’s the problem with them being a particular donation from a particular person?

And, like others have said, this isn’t a case of “sacramentals for sale”.

Is it sacrilegious? No.
Is it prudent? No.

I wonder why parishes are taking money, and publicly recognizing donors, for things very close to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, rather than taking donations for this months gas bill.

Why not ask people to contribute anonymously? Let the right hand not know what the Left is doing.

 

[rightness]

Yeah, it’s like when Jesus asks us to not pray to show off in Matthew 6:1. It comes down to the intentions of each person. If the person intended to donate for the sake of looking better than other parishioners, then that would be sinful and shouldn’t be allowed. Since donating anonymously is always possible, the parish should always encourage that practice as it has always done to avoid the possibility of leading people into a temptation.

If it’s not available, the sin won’t be possible.

What they can do is announce how much money they need for sacramentals for the year or month, show a graph of their goal, how much money they got now, and how much money they need. This is just like any other donation drive. All done anonymously, and a great practice.

 

[babochka]

Thanks. I think I’m having a hard time because the hosts are to represent our offering to The Mass. Fruit of the vine, work of human hands. So I think it is strange to have it ‘sponsored’ by one person for another person. But to each his own. If it is the k with the church, then it’s ok. Just strange.

In ancient times, the faithful would bring the bread and wine for the sacrifice with them to the church. They would also bring candles, to provide the light for the church. This seems like an extension of that practice for modern times. The hosts have been offered by the person who has sponsored them. In my Byzantine parish, one of the parishioners bakes the bread for the sacrifice, likewise offering the work of human hands. This would not be practical in a large, Latin Rite Parish that must buy hosts in bulk, but the concept is the same. Whether someone is offering their own labor and materials or offering to pay for somebody else’s labor and materials, the bread still needs to be paid for.

 

[midori]

A friend of mine is Orthodox. Their parishioner community provides the wax candles, the bread, the vestments, and probably a few other things as well. I’m sure Catholic communities used to be like that as well— but now we just order stuff out of a catalog.

Our parish is small, poor, and rural. When Father wanted new altar server garments, he asked for the community to provide the funds for it. Out of about 40 or 50 active families, only two families donated— but we got our new clothes for the altar servers.

I don’t think asking for sponsorships is common, and perhaps it’s right to not be common. I don’t think of it as being sacrilegious-- but if the parish doesn’t really feel it, it will go away on its own.

 

[Gorgias]

I wonder why parishes are taking money, and publicly recognizing donors, for things very close to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, rather than taking donations for this months gas bill.

Ever hear of donations for the Mass itself? Mass stipends are part of the practice of the Church.

Why not ask people to contribute anonymously? Let the right hand not know what the Left is doing.

Read Acts. People gave all they had – publicly – for the good of the Church and her people.

 

[rightness]

commenter:

I wonder why parishes are taking money, and publicly recognizing donors, for things very close to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, rather than taking donations for this months gas bill.

Ever hear of donations for the Mass itself? Mass stipends are part of the practice of the Church.

Why not ask people to contribute anonymously? Let the right hand not know what the Left is doing.

Read Acts. People gave all they had – publicly – for the good of the Church and her people.

Stipends are anonymous, and people gave all they had publicly in Acts because there was no method to do it anonymously. Joseph, in Acts 4:36, sold a piece of land. It’s kind of hard to do that anonymously especially when you’re going to have piles of coin.

The danger of this “subscription-based donation”, if it is going to publicly recognize individuals, is going to lead to Pride, and the fact is that we’ve been using a working method for thousands of years. So why change it when it’s worse?

 

[midori]

if it is going to publicly recognize individuals, is going to lead to Pride, and the fact is that we’ve been using a working method for thousands of years.

What’s the difference between doing something because it’s helpful/useful/needs to be done, versus doing something because you want to see your name in the bulletin?

The same thing gets done either way— but you’re ascribing Motivation B to everyone who’s participating with Motivation A in mind.

 

[Gorgias]

Stipends are anonymous

No, they’re not! Mass intentions are made public all the time. Pick up your parish’s bulletin when you get a chance. I’m sure you’ll find not only for whom the Masses are being offered, but also by whom.

people gave all they had publicly in Acts because there was no method to do it anonymously

That’s your take on it. Nothing in Scripture suggests that this was the case.

if it is going to publicly recognize individuals, is going to lead to Pride

No more so than Mass intentions have done “for thousands of years”.