In the Old Testament when the Israelites came into the Promised Land the land was divided up between the twelve Tribes of Israel. There was one exception: the Tribe of Levi, which was the priestly tribe, was not given any land. The Levites were to focus on upholding the religious and cultic functions, primarily offering of the ritual sacrifices demanded by the Law of Moses, for the good of the entire nation of Israel. The agricultural production was left to the other eleven tribes. In compensation for the fact that the Levites did not have the benefit of owning land for the purposes of agricultural production, the other tribes were required by law to offer ten percent of their produce to the Tribe of Levi – and it was expected to be the best ten percent of one’s flock or harvest. This is the origin of tithing: the word derives from the Old English word for a ‘tenth’. The idea behind tithing is that ten percent of one’s earnings/produce was considered a sufficiently substant contribution without it being overly burdensome. (As an aside, one might consider as a point of comparison the fact that many secular governments now impose taxation that can fluctuate between 20-45% of an individual’s income – which in any normal world would be considered an outrageously unjust demand.)

Because of the millennial-long practice of tithing among the Jews, this custom was adopted by the Jewish-Christian converts. In the early centuries of Christianity tithing became the normative practice as a means of supporting the clergy and the building up of the Church’s mission. By the 6^th century tithing was required by ecclesiastical law, and by the 8^th century, many civil courts sought to impose the practice of tithing under penalties. This practice continued unchallenged virtually up until the French Revolution (1789) when the law on tithing was first repealed. By the end of the 19^th Century many other European nations had overturned the civil laws enforcing tithing to the Church (whether Protestant, Anglican or Catholic). One of the rare exceptions is Germany which to this day continues to impose the state-mandated kirchensteuer (‘Church tax’) which remains at about 8-9% of one’s income. This fact alone explains the anomaly of how the churches in Germany are as bereft of parishioners as the rest of Europe, and yet they remain extremely wealthy.

In spite of the collapse of state-mandated tithing in the 19^th century, there remained a strong practice even well into the 20^th Century of providing a significant portion of one’s weekly income to support the needs of the Church. When one considers the sheer number of elaborate stone churches that were constructed in Australia between 1860-1920 at a time when the Church was virtually starting from scratch, this gives you an indication of the generosity of Australian Catholics. It’s worth noting that the Australian Catholics of this period were by no means wealthy as a demographic group. On the contrary, they were largely poor, working class, Irish migrants. And yet in addition to the hundreds of parish churches and presbyteries, they built soaring Cathedrals, Catholic hospitals, schools, university colleges, monasteries, convents, and laid the infrastructure of the Catholic Church in Australia. They achieved this through the sacrificial giving of countless individuals, because they had a vision for the future of the Catholic Church in Australia.

Fast-forward to today, and the cost of living continues to rise; unfortunately the Church is not immune from these rising costs any more than the rest of society. What has also changed dramatically is a major shift in the Christian psyche, and one that is virtually never spoken about: namely, a gravely diminished sense of responsibility for the financial needs of the Church on the part of the faithful. Many Catholics will give quite generously to the poor when there are certain appeals made. But when it comes to the Church there is now a prevailing attitude (among lapsed Catholics in particular) that the Church is no longer considered a worthwhile cause to donate to. Usually, this attitude is justified by the now cartoonishly-absurd trope that “the Catholic Church has squillions of dollars.” In reality there are many parishes that are perched on the brink of financial insolvency, because the annual costs (insurance, utilities, building maintenance, wages, etc) exceed their annual income. This is not a problem unique to the Catholic Church. The ABC reported in April 2020 that some 300 churches in Australia had been sold off in a period of just 18 months. If the Church is to correct course, then there is going to have to be a major cultural shift in terms of the Christian faithful assuming financial responsibility for their parishes. And this is especially true of the younger generation of Christians, who, reflecting a generational trend, are more likely to think in terms of entitlement rather than responsibility.

So to keep things real we might consider the following facts. According to Forbes Advisor the average weekly income for Australians in 2023 was $1,838.20. Therefore, if we were tithing then 10% of that income would be $183.80 per week! To place $5 in a weekly Church collection works out to about 0.27% of the average wager-earner’s income. To put it bluntly, putting $5 in a Church collection for most wager-earners is not really ‘sacrificial giving’ – it’s basically spare change. The Church no longer demands tithing and merely asks the faithful to give according to their means. Yet, this more ambiguous wording of the Church’s perennial precept is open to wide interpretation: how much is enough? Is the Church asking for our loose change, or something more substantial? When Luke tells the account of the poor widow who put two small coins in the treasury, Christ judges her generosity subjectively: “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she from her poverty put in all that she had to live on.” (Luke 21:3-4) The point of the story is not that loose change is sufficiently generous, but that our generosity is proportionate to our individual giving capacity: and, “to whom more has been given, more is expected” (Luke 12:48). Clearly as a society we’ve moved a long way from the tithing practised by our forebears in the faith. This is not because we are less affluent than they were: statistically, people have a far higher disposable income today than seventy years ago. What has changed is our sense of priorities, and the reality is that for many, the needs of the Church currently rank pretty low. 

Pope Benedict XVI famously predicted that the Church of the future would be smaller but purer. I think he was an astute observer of the culture. The reality is that for the next few generations of Catholics the burden of carrying the Faith forward is going to fall in the hands of a relatively small population, and that burden will include the financial burden of sustaining the Church’s patrimony as best we can. Hopefully this thanksgiving campaign has given each of us an opportunity to rigorously assess what we are able to contribute for the sake of enabling our parishes to not merely survive, but to thrive.

If you could return your pledge cards (even if your contribution remains unchanged) at the earliest possible opportunity this will be greatly appreciated. In concluding, I reiterate my personal and profound sense of gratitude to all the many generous contributors to the parish, those who give of their financial resources, their time and their gifts. May God bless you and reward you richly for all that you do.