No Tax Payment, No Blessing!

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349233901' post='2489475']
Al, the only question I'd have for you is if it might be possible that you find this approach disgusting partly because of your American ideals. I have a friend in Germany who doesn't think anything of this (and his only objection to the whole ordeal was the congregation's response; he doesn't know if the congregation is competent to respond, but that's a completely different question).

According to the CCC's definition of simony, a tax on membership might be a licit and moral way to ensure the Church endures in some locations. Simony is what is above and beyond what is required by the legitimate authority on the matter, i.e. the bishop in this case.

I know it may sound like semantics, but I don't think that this is a case of "selling the Sacraments". That's sloppy journalism at play. The bishops in the original German document make it clear that they're taxing membership in the Church (which I think is legitimately collectable under the notion of required offerings), and once you leave that membership you are no longer allowed access to the Sacraments.
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with my American ideals and nothing to do with an anti-taxation or even a separation of Church and state mentality. that's why I have been distancing myself completing from the argument that Winnie is trying to have; I wouldn't mind having that argument if it were not for my chief concern: the sacraments are being denied. that argument would indeed be about American ideals vs. more European pro-state pro-government pro-taxation argumetns (though the whole controversy was started by a German who made a lawsuit who is part of a German group of Catholics who are upset about this; I even saw on the news over here in Belgium that he referred to a precedent by a German court that defined that one could believe in the Catholic faith without being affiliated with the Church in their taxes, but I haven't been able to find out more about that online... anyway German Catholics themselves are actually divided over this issue). my argument is entirely apolitical, it is entirely theological.

It's the denial of the sacraments that has me in an uproar. And this absolutely fits the definition of simony as defined in the CCC, stipend systems like what is described in the CCC do not in any way constitute an exception to the canon 843 right to the sacraments enjoyed by all baptized Catholics properly disposed. You are stretching that stipend exception beyond recognition IMO. There is no justification for creating a system whereby membership in the Church (and thus access to the sacraments) is contingent upon paying up.

Around the world the Church uses different means to raise its funds; and I do like the system in the US and most affluent Western countries where this is done by passing around a basket for voluntary donations (tracked by many dioceses/parishes through little envelopes to help keep track in a helpful way); in many places it is done by stipends for weddings/funerals/having mass said for someone/et cetera; but canon law requires that outside of such mass intentions that there be public masses said at parishes on Sundays and Holy Days; the offerings (stipends) talked about in the CCC are NEVER, ANYWHERE in the world (except lands of Simony like Germany where it's a tax not a stipend) some kind of entry fee for the regular sacraments (ie Communion and Confession). If the Church saw fit to utilize state tax collection as a means of raising its funding, there would be an argument to be had about that but my first concern would be this: that any such system MUST ensure that Catholics who do not pay into the taxation system are still able to have access to the sacraments. anything else is completely contrary to Christian principles and practices, [i]universally[/i], and it amounts to simony because it is the sale of access to grace.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

NB: even under a stipend system, great care is to be taken to ensure that it's not viewed as a quid-pro-quo of SACRAMENT for MONEY, one is paying for the general services of the minister and not for access to the sacrament, which he has a sacred duty to dispose to all faithful properly disposed and can never refuse to anyone on the basis that they have not paid a stipend. Of course I am speaking of the sacraments of salvation (baptism (though the actual unnecessary pomp and circumstances of a baptismal ceremony might require an offering/stipend), communion, confession); sacraments like marriage or ordination can indeed be attached to certain temporal requirements that include monetary requirements, because one who truly has a vocation to those things in part discerns that vocation through navigating by providence to find that everything works out, lack of funding may be a sign of providence that you are not truly called to that vocation at that time; even in countries that operate on a stipend system any Catholic can go to Masses on Sundays and Holy Days and receive communion without an offering being required, and any Catholic can avail themselves of confession. GRACE is free of charge, and the sacraments are the conduits of grace. This is not an American principal. Not at all. It is a theological principal.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Aloysius

[Papist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349182943' post='2489194']
hs-mom,
The tax is a percentage of income. The Church determines the percentage the Church wants to get.
The tax collection is done throug the Government which is already taxing income. The Government gets a percentage of the Church determined tax to pay for thier collection and accounting expenses.
The Government in Germany, Sweden, Finland, and a few others, have laws that allows organizations that meet certain requirements to utilize the State Tax Collection apparatus to collect money from it's congregation. Catholic, Jewish, and some Protestant Religions avail themselves to this convenience.

The heartburn is the Catholic Church's method of enforcement if people choose to not participate via the established State tax system.
[/quote]
Sounds like extortion. Was the dude that designed this method from Chicago?

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349237780' post='2489485']
Minor gospel of anarchy...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPXnoLAEUSQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]
[/quote]
You're conflating law with legislation.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349272620' post='2489563']
You're conflating law with legislation.
[/quote]
"It is better that all things be regulated by law, than left to be decided by judges."

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349260844' post='2489528']
NB: even under a stipend system, great care is to be taken to ensure that it's not viewed as a quid-pro-quo of SACRAMENT for MONEY, one is paying for the general services of the minister and not for access to the sacrament, which he has a sacred duty to dispose to all faithful properly disposed and can never refuse to anyone on the basis that they have not paid a stipend. Of course I am speaking of the sacraments of salvation (baptism (though the actual unnecessary pomp and circumstances of a baptismal ceremony might require an offering/stipend), communion, confession); sacraments like marriage or ordination can indeed be attached to certain temporal requirements that include monetary requirements, because one who truly has a vocation to those things in part discerns that vocation through navigating by providence to find that everything works out, lack of funding may be a sign of providence that you are not truly called to that vocation at that time; even in countries that operate on a stipend system any Catholic can go to Masses on Sundays and Holy Days and receive communion without an offering being required, and any Catholic can avail themselves of confession. GRACE is free of charge, and the sacraments are the conduits of grace. This is not an American principal. Not at all. It is a theological principal.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I suppose, but the original German document from the bishops doesn't really take this tone at all. They say very specifically:

Die aus der Kirche ausgetretene Person ([b]The person who has left the Church[/b]):
- [u]darf [/u]die Sakramente der Buße, Eucharistie, Firmung und
Krankensalbung – außer in Todesgefahr - nicht empfangen, ([b]should not receive the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Annointing of the Sick except when they are in danger of dying[/b])
- [u]kann [/u]keine kirchlichen Ämter bekleiden und keine Funktionen in
der Kirche wahrnehmen, ([b]Can hold no Ecclesial offices and can perform no functions in the Church[/b])
- [u]kann [/u]nicht Taufpate und nicht Firmpate sein, ([b]Cannot be a godparent or sponser? witness?[/b])
- [u]kann [/u]nicht Mitglied in pfarrlichen und in diözesanen Räten sein, ([b]Cannot be a member of parish or diocesan councils[/b])
- verliert das aktive und passive Wahlrecht in der Kirche, ([b]Loses the ability to vote or be elected in the Church[/b])
- [u]kann [/u]nicht Mitglied in öffentlichen kirchlichen Vereinen sein. ([b]Cannot be a member of public ecclesial associations/ lay associations[/b])

Note the difference between [i]darf[/i] and [i]kann[/i]. It's a difference of degree ([i]kann[/i] being stronger).

For the bishops, it's not just about the Sacraments. It's about taking place in the entire life of the Church. Also, they haven't denied the Sacraments or prevented these people from taking the Sacraments, but they are saying that anyone who renounces their membership in the Church loses these rights.

According to the article, the German government established the rule that the only way out of this tax is to declare yourself no longer Catholic. It is the German government making the people declare their religious or non-religious affiliation. The government set this rule forth as a means to promote religious freedom, so that no one was taxed against his will.

The bishops go on to explain:

Die Erklärung des Kirchenaustritts vor der zuständigen zivilen Behörde
stellt als öffentlicher Akt eine willentliche und wissentliche
Distanzierung von der Kirche dar und ist eine schwere Verfehlung
gegenüber der kirchlichen Gemeinschaft.

The declaration of leaving the Church before the legitimate civilian authority constitutes, in a public act, a willing and knowing distancing from the Church and therefore is a serious offence against ecclesial community. They then reference Canon 209 §1. [quote]The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.[/quote]

I think they could have used two as well, but they chose 1.
(§2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.)

The bishops continue: Die Erklärung des Kirchenaustritts erfüllt die Kirche mit Sorge und
bewegt sie, der Person, die ihren Austritt erklärt hat, mit pastoraler
Hinwendung nachzugehen. (The declaration of leaving the Church fills the Church with care and moves her to investigate, with pastoral care, the person who has declared his exit.)

They then introduce the section I quoted first, saying, Die Erklärung des Kirchenaustritts zieht folgende Rechtsfolgen nach sich: (The declaration of leaving the Church entails the following legal consequences).


In all the bishops see this act of apostacy and grave sin. They aren't denying the Sacraments in the way most people in America might expect or desire a bishop to deny Holy Communion to a pro-abortion politician. They're pastorally recommending that anyone who makes such a public declaration before a legitimate public offical has performed such an act, even if the purpose is to avoid taxes. I think your point is well made that this shouldn't be about the interaction of government and state because it will be different for us Americans, but I think in some ways that interaction also influences how the bishops see this act.

Furthermore, I see the other prohibitions (and these are strict prohibitions versus the [i]darf[/i], should not clause) as being more substantial than their denial of the Sacraments. I think the denial of Sacraments was played up by terrible news articles, and I couldn't even find much in German to give contrast.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349279012' post='2489582']
"It is better that all things be regulated by law, than left to be decided by judges."
[/quote]
Where are you getting these self-enforcing laws?

[qfnol31]

Also, you reference a court case...I think it was thrown out in Germany.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349281200' post='2489589']
Also, you reference a court case...I think it was thrown out in Germany.
[/quote]

The case of Hartmut Zapp, a canon lawyer, is a interesting one. He's made quite clear and very publicly that he does not want to renounce the faith. He just doesn't want to pay the tax. But if he wants to remain he must pay the tax. The real issue isn't really about renouncing the faith, its about not paying the tax.

Did you get a answer from your Priest friend about the Canon law you used as defense of your stance?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349272620' post='2489563']

You're conflating law with legislation.
[/quote]

You're confusing a joke with being serious.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349285358' post='2489596']
You're confusing a joke with being serious.
[/quote]
You're confusing lack of humour with inability to keep from making a point even whilst seeing the humour in a statement.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349286381' post='2489599']
You're confusing lack of humour with inability to keep from making a point even whilst seeing the humour in a statement.
[/quote]

Now you're just confusing me.

[Slappo]

I'd be curious as to how sacraments would be denied to those who have publicly renounced the faith in order to not pay taxes. Go into a confessional, slide your most recent tax forms underneath the grill, after Father reviews them he starts confession? I think not.

From qfnol31's post 141 it sounds more like shepherds leading the sheep pastorally. "If you've done this, then you shouldn't receive the sacraments". I don't forsee people being denied communion if they present themselves for it, or people being kicked out of a confessional.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349287827' post='2489609']

Now you're just confusing me.
[/quote]
You're confusing being confused with being entertained.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349289508' post='2489619']
You're confusing being confused with being entertained.
[/quote]

[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqvo5vqm5x1qii6tmo1_500.gif[/img]