§ 4. On Cessation from Servile Works

488. The precept of sanctifying Sundays and feast days is at once affirmative and negative. Insofar as it is affirmative, it commands the due worship to be rendered to God through hearing Mass, as has thus far been explained. But insofar as it is negative, it commands abstention from certain works which impede the worship of God.

Distinctions. In the present matter a fourfold genus of works is distinguished: servile, liberal, common, and forensic works.

1. Servile works are those which a) are accomplished chiefly by bodily labor, b) are immediately ordered to the utility of the body, and c) in ancient times were customarily done by servants.⁶⁹⁵ Such works are, for example: rural works, such as digging, plowing, sowing, reaping, etc.; mechanical works, such as spinning, sewing, constructing walls, making shoes, etc. It is to be carefully noted for practice that servile works are to be judged from the end of the work, and in no way from the end of the worker, nor from the duration of time, nor from the fatigue joined with the work. Therefore a work which is accomplished chiefly by bodily labor and immediately serves bodily convenience does not cease to be servile if it is done for the sake of recreation, without remuneration, from a holy end, or for a brief time. Hence, for example, a woman who spins or sews to make clothing for the poor truly performs a servile work and sins unless there is an excusing cause, which will be discussed below in n. 496.

2. Liberal works are said to be those which a) proceed chiefly from the powers of the soul, b) immediately regard the cultivation of the mind, and c) were customarily done by free men, such as reading, teaching, singing, playing the organ, writing, drawing, etc. Such works remain liberal even if they are performed with great fatigue and are undertaken to obtain wages. Hence, for example, it is lawful to teach, sing, etc., on Sundays and feast days, even if this is done for the sake of remuneration.

3. Common works (also called intermediate and natural) are those which are performed indiscriminately by free men and servants and serve especially for the daily care of the body, such as eating, playing, hunting, and making a journey.

4. Forensic works are those which include a twofold genus of actions: a) actions of a judicial forum, such as judging in a tribunal, accusing, defending a defendant, etc.; b) actions of a commercial forum, such as buying, selling, leasing, etc.

⁶⁹⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 273.

489. Note. There are several works whose character is doubtful and which cannot certainly be numbered among either liberal or servile works. To resolve a doubt of this kind, one must attend not only to the nature of the work, but also to the estimation of men. Therefore it can happen that a work which is of itself servile is held lawful on Sundays and feast days because of the estimation of men. For example, rowing and guiding horses as a driver are of themselves servile works; but if they are done for the sake of recreation on feast days, they are held lawful from the common estimation of men. Making rosaries and sewing scapulars are of themselves servile works, but by a sufficiently common estimation they are held lawful on days of precept, provided they are done for the sake of devotion and not profit.

490. Special doubts concern the following works:

1. Whether it is lawful to write and transcribe on a feast day? The response is: It is lawful to write, even by means of a machine, since this is a liberal work in which the mind chiefly acts. Thus all teach. Transcribing (at least sometimes) certainly seems to be a liberal work, for example, if it is done for the sake of aiding memory, teaching, learning, preaching, etc., because then it serves to cultivate the mind. But if someone transcribes as a mere copyist, and especially by means of a machine, to make a profit, such a work can only with difficulty be numbered among liberal works,⁶⁹⁶ since many transcribe things which they do not understand at all. In practice, the common estimation existing in a particular region is to be attended to. But since copyists of this kind are often oppressed by poverty, they are to be judged benignly if for a few hours on feast days they have transcribed for the sake of profit. Typesetting is similar to transcription, because today both transcription and the composition of type are customarily done by means of a machine; and therefore St. Alphonsus⁶⁹⁷ thinks it lawful to compose type on feast days. But according to the common estimation in our regions, the typographic art is held to be mechanical and the composition of type is considered a servile work; hence it is not lawful on Sundays and feast days without necessity or another excusing cause.

2. Are drawing, painting with a brush, and sculpting servile works? The response is: Drawing is a liberal work, provided it is done in an artistic manner, because it is accomplished by the mind rather than the body. But if it is done in a mechanical manner, with a stencil or pattern, then the same seems to hold as was said concerning transcription. For such drawing is not unlike transcription. Painting with a brush seems to be a liberal work, provided it is done in an artistic manner and not with great apparatus. For if writing is a liberal work, a fortiori painting artistically with a brush is a liberal work, since it serves to express concepts of the mind. Painting in a manner that is mechanical rather than artistic is a servile work. Hence those who whitewash walls or paint upon walls in a decorative manner cannot lawfully do this on days of precept; and in our regions a true scandal would arise if a painter, for the sake of profit, adorned, for example, the walls of a church with his decorative art on days of precept. Sculpting is commonly held among the mechanical arts,⁶⁹⁸ but artistically finishing an already nearly completed work by sculpting is deservedly judged a liberal work, because such completion of a work requires almost no bodily labor but great spiritual attention.

3. Are the diverse manual works which women customarily perform in a more or less artistic manner servile works? The response is: This seems to depend upon the art or at least the attention required for those works. For if almost no art or special attention of mind is necessary in performing a particular work, such a work is mechanical and servile, as, for example, knitting, crocheting, and embroidering with a needle; but if special attention and art are required, such a work is judged to be liberal, as, for example, artistic embroidery with a needle. Generally it can be said: Those manual works of women which can also be performed by means of a machine (although not in so perfect a manner) are held to be mechanical and servile works, such as spinning, sewing, weaving, etc.; but those works which necessarily are handmade can be considered liberal. Besides, it will be said below in n. 496 how women's manual works can sometimes be permitted in practice on days of precept.

4. Are photographs, phototypes, and other reproductions perfected by means of light servile works? The response is: If works of this kind require great attention of mind and little bodily labor, they can be considered liberal works; otherwise, mechanical and servile works. In practice, a sufficient cause is rather easily present for permitting photography and other similar arts on days of precept.

⁶⁹⁶ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 3; Cajetan, Commentary on 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4, n. 12.

⁶⁹⁷ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 279.

⁶⁹⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 321.

491. Subdivision of servile works. Works which are chiefly prohibited on Sundays and feast days are called servile according to that precept of the Old Testament: "You shall do no servile work on it."⁶⁹⁹ Under the Jewish Law, prohibited servile works were enumerated in particular; but in the New Law a far milder practice exists. St. Thomas⁷⁰⁰ observes excellently: "A work is called servile from servitude. Now there is a threefold servitude: one, indeed, by which man serves sin, according to the saying: He who commits sin is the servant of sin.⁷⁰¹ And according to this, every work of sin is called servile. Another servitude is that by which man serves man; but a man is the servant of another not according to the mind, but according to the body, and therefore servile works according to this are called bodily works in which one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God, and according to this a servile work could be called a work of latria, which pertains to the service of God."

⁶⁹⁹ Lev. 23:7.

⁷⁰⁰ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 3.

⁷⁰¹ John 8:34.

492. Principle 1. On Sundays and feast days a servile work taken in the first and second sense is prohibited; but a servile work in the third sense (although it is joined with bodily labor) is in no way prohibited, but rather commended.

a) Servile works taken in the first sense, that is, sins (especially external and public sins), are most opposed to the sanctification of Sunday and feast days and to divine worship. Wherefore the Angelic Doctor⁷⁰² teaches: "Because man is impeded from divine things more by a work of sin than by a lawful work, although it be bodily, therefore he who sins on a feast day acts more against this precept than one who performs another lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine⁷⁰³ says: 'A Jew would do better to perform something useful in his field than to be seditious in the theater; and their women would do better to work wool on the sabbath day than to dance immodestly the whole day at their new moons.'" Therefore all theologians teach that an external sin committed on days of precept is graver than if the same sin were committed on another day. Thus at least objectively; for subjectively several of the faithful do not notice the difference of the days. Although, however, an external sin of this kind is graver, nevertheless the circumstance of sacred time does not constitute a grave and new moral species, so that this would have to be explained in confession, at least if a special reason of grave scandal is absent. Thus Cajetan,⁷⁰⁴ Sylvester Prierias,⁷⁰⁵ Sylvius,⁷⁰⁶ Billuart,⁷⁰⁷ St. Alphonsus,⁷⁰⁸ and commonly all modern authors teach more probably, against Concina⁷⁰⁹ and several ancient authors cited by him. For although every sin is more against the worship of God than any other bodily work, nevertheless it cannot be called a servile work except in a metaphorical or mystical sense;⁷¹⁰ but in the third precept of the Decalogue servile works are prohibited only in the literal sense. Next, the precept of avoiding sins is a general precept, while the precept of sanctifying Sunday and feast days is a particular precept. Finally, the same is established from the universal practice both of confessors and of devout penitents, of whom neither are the latter accustomed to accuse themselves, nor the former to interrogate them, concerning the circumstance of sacred time, unless there was a special reason of grave scandal, as, for example, in public and scandalous drunkenness. But if St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, and other grave authors say that sins are against the observance of the sabbath, this is most true insofar as the virtue of religion commands especially that sins not be committed in sacred time, since they not only impede the worship of God, but are also against the end and spirit of the third precept of the Decalogue. But from this it by no means follows that through sins committed on those days the virtue of religion is wounded in a specifically diverse manner. Hence confessors and preachers indeed act well when they proclaim that sins of lust, drunkenness, quarrels, etc., are greatly opposed to the sanctification of feast days and Sunday; but let them by no means teach that a twofold grave sin specifically diverse is thereby committed, which must necessarily be declared in the confessional.

b) A servile work taken in the second sense, that is, one which is accomplished chiefly by bodily powers and immediately serves the necessities of the body, is directly prohibited on Sundays and feast days. Thus the Code of Canon Law expressly establishes in c. 1248. The reason is that such a servile work a) absorbs the application of the worker and hinders him from elevating his mind to divine things; b) is accustomed to cause great bodily fatigue; and c) is perceived by others, who can easily suffer scandal from it. Wherefore from servile works performed without necessity in sacred time are induced all the moral and social inconveniences which arise from violation of the third precept and which were discussed above in n. 471. Certainly man can also be impeded from the worship of God by liberal works performed in sacred time (as if someone, for example, attentively read a profane book throughout the whole Sunday); nevertheless, this does not happen so frequently nor exercise so evil an influence upon others, since they do not perceive it so easily. Hence liberal works impede the worship of God accidentally rather than of themselves, and therefore they are not prohibited in the third precept of the Decalogue. Nevertheless, one would certainly sin who neglected divine worship in sacred time even because of liberal works.

c) A servile work taken in the third sense is lawful, because through it the mind is not only not withdrawn from divine worship, but rather is induced to honor God. It is required, however, at least commonly, that these works immediately serve divine worship and be done gratuitously and without material wages; because otherwise their principal end would not be the worship of God but the obtaining of material wages. Servile works of this kind are: on Sundays and feast days to carry crosses, images, and banners, to ring bells, to adorn altars with garlands and candlesticks, to wash purificators, to make vestments, etc. But if a sacristan or others receive wages for these works, they then approach servile works strictly so called and are not lawful except because of the necessity either of worship or of the worker. Servile works which serve divine worship not immediately but remotely, such as sweeping a church, making garlands for altars, cutting or transporting stones or wood for constructing a church, manufacturing chalices, washing altar cloths, etc., are gravely prohibited unless necessity or legitimate dispensation excuses. Such a dispensation can be granted rather easily if the church is so poor that it cannot expend suitable wages so that works of this kind be performed on weekdays.

⁷⁰² Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 3.

⁷⁰³ Sermon 9 (al. 96) de tempore, c. 3.

⁷⁰⁴ Commentary on 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4.

⁷⁰⁵ Summa Summ., s.v. "Confessio" I, n. 11.

⁷⁰⁶ In Suppl. 9, a. 2.

⁷⁰⁷ De relig. diss. 6, a. 2.

⁷⁰⁸ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 273.

⁷⁰⁹ De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 2, c. 2.

⁷¹⁰ Thus also St. Thomas, 3, dist. 37, a. 5, sol. 2 ad 2.

493. Principle 2. Besides the servile works enumerated above, forensic works and public markets are also prohibited on Sundays and feast days.

Thus from the law of the Decretals,⁷¹¹ which has been modified in some manner by the Code of Canon Law establishing:⁷¹² "On feasts of precept ... there must be abstention ... from forensic acts, and likewise (unless legitimate customs or particular indults provide otherwise) from public markets, fairs, and other public purchases and sales."

The following seem to be established for practice: 1. Abstention from forensic (and servile) works binds from midnight to midnight, for example, from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday.⁷¹³ Forensic works are also prohibited on the last three days of Holy Week (at least for ecclesiastical tribunals). The forensic acts which are prohibited are: serving citations, holding hearings, examining parties and witnesses, receiving proofs, rendering, pronouncing, and executing decrees and sentences, unless, however, necessity, Christian charity, or the public good should demand otherwise in the judgment of the judge.⁷¹⁴ Acts which are done without judicial contention are not prohibited, for example, consulting an advocate, lodging an appeal, etc.

2. Under the name of public markets are understood not only fairs (whether annual or weekly⁷¹⁵), but also all clamorous acts of trading, for example, contracts of public purchase, sale, lease, etc. Hence the following acts seem to be unlawful: a) public sales at auction of greater things. For such auctions are accustomed to be conducted with great clamor, which accords little with Sunday rest. But when a reasonable cause exists, it can be permitted that small things be sold at auction on days of precept. b) solemn contracts of sale, purchase, lease, etc., namely, those which are completed before a public authority and with instruments drawn up by notaries.

The following acts seem lawful: a) fairs in which small things are sold, such as flowers, small images, and certain foods, such as apples, pears, cherries, grapes, etc.; nevertheless, these things must be brought to the place of the fair not on the feast day, but on the day before, at least if they are of a greater quantity. b) private contracts of purchase, sale, etc., in shops. Hence universal custom holds that things necessary for daily use are bought and sold even on days of precept, for example, butter, bread, meats, etc. Likewise, country people who, because of continual labor, are not accustomed to approach the city except on feast days lawfully buy for themselves in shops shoes, clothing, and other things of lesser importance.⁷¹⁶ Likewise, it is lawful to hire workers, lease houses, and indeed, according to certain authors,⁷¹⁷ buy beasts of burden and sell horses. This last, however, cannot lawfully be done except where such a universal custom exists. Happily, it has also been established by the civil laws of many regions that workshops and commercial shops must be closed on days of precept, or at least not opened except for a few hours.

⁷¹¹ c. 1, X 2, 9.

⁷¹² c. 1248.

⁷¹³ c. 1246.

⁷¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 1639.

⁷¹⁵ Jahr- und Wochenmärkte [annual and weekly markets].

⁷¹⁶ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 2.

⁷¹⁷ Thus St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 285.

494. Principle 3. The precept of abstaining from unlawful servile and forensic works is grave from its genus, but admits slightness of matter.

Thus all teach. But authors do not agree on what constitutes grave matter in the transgression of this precept. The Salmanticenses⁷¹⁸ adduce seven diverse opinions in this controversy, which it would be long to recount here. The two extreme opinions are these: 1. There is no grave transgression unless someone spends a third part of the whole day in servile labors; or, one does not sin mortally unless he labors for eight hours without any excusing cause. 2. It is a grave sin if someone performs servile works for one complete hour. Each opinion is evidently false. Today theologians commonly teach that the matter is grave, and consequently the sin grave, if someone without any excusing cause performs truly servile works for more than two hours (whether continuously or with intervals interposed and the parts of the labor coalescing into two hours). But if the labor is not so servile, but rather light or in some manner liberal, a space of three hours seems to constitute grave matter.⁷¹⁹ In forensic works, however, the gravity of matter is derived not so much from the duration of time as a) from the quality of the work⁷²⁰ and b) from the scandal arising from it. The Church even today has determined nothing concerning this controversy. In practice, in order to judge the gravity of a transgression one must also attend to whether scandal arose, whether not even the least excusing cause was present, and whether the worker acts with an erroneous conscience. Thus, for example, a master who commands ten workers to perform servile works for one hour does not indeed sin mortally by transgressing the positive precept of Sunday rest, because the works of the laborers are not united to form grave matter, and each matter taken individually is light matter;⁷²¹ but he can easily commit a grave sin because of scandal or contempt. But if the same master commands one worker to labor for ten hours, without doubt he sins gravely, since he commanded a gravely evil work. Therefore in the first case the master commanded ten venial sins; but in the other case he commanded one mortal sin.

⁷¹⁸ Curs. theol. mor. tr. 23, c. 1, n. 319.

⁷¹⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 305.

⁷²⁰ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 307.

⁷²¹ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 2, and St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 306. Concina, De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 2, c. 8, teaches the contrary vehemently.

495. The causes excusing from this law can be reduced to three categories, which are: 1. one's own or another's necessity; 2. legitimate custom; 3. legitimate dispensation. Certain authors also enumerate piety toward God among the excusing causes. For servile works which are immediately ordered to divine worship are permitted, such as ringing bells, carrying banners, etc. Above in n. 492, in the first principle, we proved from St. Thomas that works of this kind not only do not turn the mind away from the worship of God, but rather lead it thereto, and consequently are lawful. If, however, such servile works conduce only remotely to divine worship, as, for example, whitewashing the walls of a church, building a church, transporting stones and wood, etc., then they are not of themselves lawful; but they are sometimes permitted by legitimate authority if they are done gratuitously for poor churches.

496. 1. By reason of one's own or another's necessity, whether this is of the body or of the spirit, the following are excused:

a) farmers who, because of past or imminent rain, must immediately gather crops or fruits. In practice, it is better that the pastor of the place in these circumstances declare publicly that agricultural labors are permitted on such a day. For thus both scandal and the danger of deception are avoided;

b) tailors, shoemakers, and other craftsmen who must make or repair altogether necessary clothing, for example, for impending weddings or funerals. The same are excused if otherwise they would have to suffer great harm;

c) the poor who truly cannot sustain themselves and their own without labor performed on days of precept;

d) servants, wives, and children who are compelled to labor by a master, husband, or parents, provided, however, that such compulsion does not proceed from hatred of religion;

e) workers who must keep watch over machines in large factories; repairers of bridges, railways, etc., if there is danger in delay. Next, all who immediately prepare foods necessary to be eaten on Sundays and feast days. For if a man is not bound to fast on those days, he also has the right that necessary foods be prepared for him. Hence the labors of a cook and his assistants are lawful. But labors which are necessary for the remote preparation of foods are not lawful, for example, slaughtering an ox to obtain meat;

f) some necessity also exists if there is a danger of sinning from idleness. Hence a confessor can readily permit women to perform certain light manual works with a needle and other instruments on days of precept; likewise, that young persons take photographs. Certain clauses, however, are to be imposed, namely: that such labors not last for too long a time; that no scandal arise therefrom; that such workers piously assist at Mass and other religious exercises; that the workers receive no material wages therefrom. When these conditions are fulfilled, it is much better that someone perform a light labor on days of precept than spend the time in dangerous idleness, or in reading novels, or in dangerous games and conversations, or in frequenting a tavern. Nor let anyone say that these persons can apply themselves to other lawful liberal works or pious readings and thus shake off idleness; for this is sometimes morally impossible because of diverse circumstances. Besides, every difficulty vanishes if these women make ornaments for poor churches or clothing for the poor,⁷²² because then there is always the excusing cause of piety.

⁷²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 302.

497. 2. By reason of custom the following are excused:

a) barbers, whether they shave their own or another's beard. Likewise, in barbers' shops it is lawful that hair be cut, washed, etc.;

b) drivers, whether of public carriages⁷²³ or even private carriages, for transporting persons, but not (at least in our regions) for guiding carts laden with merchandise, unless necessity compels. In the time of St. Alphonsus⁷²⁴ a milder practice seems to have existed in Italy;

c) hunters and fishermen, provided, however, that they act without great bodily labor. Hence, for example, it seems lawful to fish with a hook on feast days,⁷²⁵ but not with large nets;

d) sellers of things of lesser importance in public streets, for example, those who go through the streets to sell newspapers, flowers, fruits, postcards, etc.

⁷²³ Commonly Kutscher, cocher [coachman].

⁷²⁴ Cf. l.c., n. 276.

⁷²⁵ Cf. l.c., n. 285.

498. 3. The following can dispense in the law concerning the observance of Sunday and feast days: the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church; in a particular case, Ordinaries of places for their district; in exempt clerical religious institutes, superiors for their individual subjects, after the manner of a pastor. A reasonable cause, however, is always required for both the validity and liceity of the dispensation, since this law is not merely ecclesiastical, but also partly divine. A pastor also can in individual cases by his own authority dispense individual faithful or individual families subject to him, even outside the territory, and within his own territory even travelers.⁷²⁶ A confessor, although he cannot dispense, can nevertheless for a just cause declare that the law does not bind the penitent in a particular case.

⁷²⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 1245, § 1.

499. Scholion. On offerings, first fruits, and tithes. St. Thomas⁷²⁷ also numbers among the acts of religion and worship offerings, first fruits, and tithes given for carrying out divine worship or for sustaining the ministers of the Church. Canonists treat this matter more broadly. Let the following be noted very briefly as pertaining to Moral Theology.

An offering generally is the bestowal of some thing not requested; but the offering which is treated here is a spontaneous bestowal for divine worship and the sustenance of sacred ministers. The offerings which are in use today are especially the so-called "collections" made for pious causes and manual stipends for Masses.

First fruits are the first fruits of the earth and of animals which are offered for divine worship as a sign of reverence and gratitude toward God. Today first fruits of this kind are in use almost nowhere.

Tithes (ecclesiastical), by force of the name, are the tenth part of fruits to be rendered to the ministers of the Church for their suitable sustenance. Since, however, not always a tenth part, but sometimes a twelfth or twentieth part of revenues is to be expended for this end, tithes are better called certain taxes imposed upon the faithful for the suitable sustenance of the pastoral clergy.⁷²⁸ These taxes or subsidies according to their substance are prescribed by natural and divine law itself; but according to their determined quantity they are of positive human law. Wycliff taught that tithes were not strictly due but mere alms which the faithful could deny at will; but this doctrine was condemned by the Council of Constance.⁷²⁹

Since natural law commands the external worship of God, as was proved above in n. 327, and since this worship cannot be had in a suitable manner without churches, ornaments, ministers, etc., the faithful are bound through offerings to procure that the things necessary for external worship be had. Wherefore St. Thomas⁷³⁰ writes: "For natural reason dictates that the people furnish the necessities of life to those who ministered in divine worship for the salvation of the whole people; just as the stipends of life are also owed by the people to those who watch over the common utility, namely, princes and soldiers and others of this kind. Hence the Apostle also proves this through human customs, saying: 'Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? or who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruits?'"

The divine law of both the Old and New Testaments expressly prescribes that due sustenance be rendered by the faithful to the ministers of the altar. In the Old Testament God carefully and abundantly provided for the sustenance of priests and Levites;⁷³¹ in the New Testament St. Paul writes: "Know you not that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who announce the Gospel should live by the Gospel."⁷³² Hence even the Waldenses returning to the bosom of the Church had to profess: "We believe that tithes, first fruits, and offerings are to be paid to clerics by the precept of the Lord."⁷³³

Ecclesiastical law, c. 1502, prescribes concerning this matter: "As regards the payment of tithes and first fruits, particular statutes and laudable customs are to be observed in each region."⁷³⁴

From these things it follows that those who defraud the taxes necessary for divine worship commit a twofold sin, namely, of irreligion and injustice, and consequently, strictly speaking, are bound to restitution unless the Church freely renounces the exaction of this restitution. Although in certain regions a special ecclesiastical precept has been issued concerning the payment of tithes or other offerings necessary for worship,⁷³⁵ nevertheless the Church does not seem to urge her right, or at least renounces the exaction of restitution for defrauded ecclesiastical taxes. Indeed, the faithful who deny or diminish this subsidy or tax are not readily to be accused of a grave sin committed, unless thereby priests are compelled to indigence and the rest of the faithful to excessive contributions. Hence Kenrick⁷³⁶ deservedly says: "So long as the burden is imposed and defined by no certain law, we do not dare to condemn of mortal sin one who omits to contribute an equitable portion, whenever there is no danger that priests should be in need for that reason or that other faithful should be too heavily burdened." A fortiori, such faithful are not to be compelled, under threat that absolution will be denied, to pay all ecclesiastical taxes. Most worthy of note are the words of St. Thomas⁷³⁷ concerning this matter: "The ministers of the Church ought to have greater care for promoting spiritual goods among the people than for collecting temporal goods; and therefore the Apostle did not wish to use the power handed down to him by the Lord, namely, that he receive the stipends of life from those to whom he preached the Gospel, lest some impediment be given to the Gospel of Christ." Besides, experience establishes more than sufficiently that clerics who labor strenuously for the honor of God and the salvation of souls never lack suitable sustenance.

⁷²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, qq. 86 and 87.

⁷²⁸ Commonly Kultussteuer, denier du culte, support of the pastors.

⁷²⁹ Proposition 18 was condemned: "Tithes are pure alms, and parishioners can withdraw them at their own will because of the sins of their prelates" (Denz. n. 598).

⁷³⁰ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 87, a. 1.

⁷³¹ Cf. the whole of chapter 18 of Numbers.

⁷³² 1 Cor. 9:13ff.; cf. Matt. 10:10ff.

⁷³³ Denz. n. 427.

⁷³⁴ Cf. also c. 1504.

⁷³⁵ The Third Council of Baltimore (cf. tit. IX, c. 3) ordered that the following be inserted into the catechism as the fifth precept of the Church: To contribute some subsidy for the suitable sustenance of pastors. In Germany also ecclesiastical taxes (Kirchensteuer) exist.

⁷³⁶ Theol. mor. tr. 4, n. 64.

⁷³⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 87, a. 1 ad 5.