Such a move had been a long time coming, particularly in light of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines’ (PCP II) vision of the Church of the Poor, in which “the poor are not to be deprived of the spiritual riches of the Church.”
The arancel system enables parishes to sustain their ministries and programs partially. But the bishops’ conference recognized that it can be a “hindrance for the poor to receive God’s grace and blessings” and “obstacles to genuine service, especially to the poor.”
The 2021 pastoral letter was a welcome move albeit belated. However, some parishes had taken the initiative to abolish the system much earlier in response to the situation of their parishioners.
The harsh reality is that in terms of the reception of the sacraments, the playing field, so to speak, is not level. There are Catholics — mostly the well-off — who have more access to the sacraments than others.
Many of the poor delay the baptism of their children, not because they do not believe in the sacrament but because of the expenses involved in its celebration, including what they think they must pay their parishes.
Some get married civilly instead of getting married in church because they perceive church weddings as more expensive. Still, others refrain from offering their mass intentions because they do not have enough money to spend on them.
The arancel system gives the unintended impression that the sacraments and sacramentals are for sale and are the source of income for pastors. Its abolition will hopefully bring about a change of mindset.
The People of God ought to see the sacraments as truly the celebrations of the mysteries of the Christian faith. When they participate actively and attentively in them, the sacramental celebrations become privileged moments of encountering God, effecting both personal conversion and social transformation.
Regardless of one’s socio-economic status, everyone is given the same level of access to the sacraments — equal treatment in sacramental celebrations.
Celebrations are based on need, and not on one’s capacity to “pay” for them. In order to impress on ordinary Catholics that the sacraments are for all, greater efforts must be made by the church’s leadership not to be too parish-centered in its ministries since it is unrealistic to expect the unchurched to go to our parishes.
Pastoral leaders need to develop creative programs as they go out to the peripheries and build “field hospitals” for those who need healing. Church leaders ought to accompany people in the battleground of life and when they do that, they will be responsive to the challenge of Pope Francis to truly “smell like their sheep.”
Furthermore, the abolition of the arancel system might have a salutary effect on pastors, of not eyeing the more prosperous parishes where the sacraments are more “expensive.” The higher rates usually translate into more income for the presider and the parish.
While the primary consideration for any assignment in a local church ought to be service to the community as one’s vocation, economic considerations might even predominate. Pastors might consider their assignments in local churches as a career, an outlook that seems to be promoted unintentionally by the arancel system.
The bishops’ conference itself recognizes the need to develop a spirituality of stewardship, encouraging the laity to voluntarily contribute to the church’s ministries and programs and making sure that the church’s limited funds are used justly.
Among other things, this will mean that Church institutions are expected to exercise financial accountability, practice transparency in their books, and subject themselves to auditing. Any form of corruption or misuse of funds on the part of Church leaders — whether cleric or lay — must not be tolerated. If need be, those who violate the Church’s trust must bear the full brunt of the law.
Just as there are lifestyle checks on officials serving in the government, similar measures must be put in place regarding Church officials. We need to do away with the clericalist attitude that excuses the clergy from financial malfeasance.
We need to emphasize here that the money of the Church is the patrimony of the poor. The Church is meant to become a church of and for the poor.
As PCP II states, the entire community of the Church, especially the rich and better-offs in society, needs to “orient and tilt the center of gravity of the entire community in favor of the needy,” and its leaders “will give preferential attention and time to those who are poor, and will generously share of their own resources to alleviate their poverty.”
Considering that many, if not most, parishes in the Philippines are not self-sustaining, the move to abolish the arancel system is a bold one. At the same time, it is a necessary step, particularly if the Church hopes to develop structures that promote participation and accountability.
One can hope that with its abolition, the local churches in the Philippines will learn to embrace and practice the evangelical spirit of poverty, as PCP II envisions.