No Tax Payment, No Blessing!

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349292298' post='2489631']

[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqvo5vqm5x1qii6tmo1_500.gif[/img]
[/quote]
You're confusing blinking with winking.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349285265' post='2489595']
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?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, no...he ducked into his classroom early, even though he's always out in the hallway.

I'll see if I run into him tomorrow or Friday. I thought of another question to ask him too.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349297684' post='2489676']
Unfortunately, no...he ducked into his classroom early, even though he's always out in the hallway.

I'll see if I run into him tomorrow or Friday. I thought of another question to ask him too.
[/quote]

Dang! Well ok cool. I am interesting in knowing either way.

[Groo the Wanderer]

so...why cannot german Catholics just refuse to pay the tax?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1349318504' post='2489797']
so...why cannot german Catholics just refuse to pay the tax?
[/quote]
Only way to get out of the tax is to declare yourself non-Catholic.

[Aloysius]

It's not so much the general principals of their statement about publicly renouncing the faith removing oneself from the life of the Church; that is certainly true in principal. The problem is that they have identified membership registration in the corporate structure surrounding the Church in Germany as identical to membership in the mystical body of Christ. the people involved in the lawsuit in no way are trying to deny their faith in public, rather they wish to unaffiliate with the corporate structure that surrounds the Church in Germany so that they don't have to pay the tax. they could fulfill their canon 222 obligation in many other ways; perhaps they wish to fulfill it without giving the government their collection-fee cut, or perhaps they want to exercise their rights under canon 1267 §3 to give to the Church for a specific purpose they have in mind to help the Church, but they cannot afford both to do the tax and to contribute freely for a particular purpose so they wish to only do the one... there are any number of ways in which not wanting to pay this tax does not indicate one is in any way trying to shirk their canon 222 responsibilities.

but yes, I have a problem with the way the bishops have here equivocated non-affiliation with the corporate Church structure as an act of apostasy against the Church, and I disagree with the bishops for putting the faithful into that position where they either have to pay up a tax or their membership in the Church becomes in jeopardy. to the first point, I do not believe at all that the conditions for the effective latae-senantiae excommunicatio (though I don't see that they've used this terminology, I extrapolate it from their talk of removing oneself from membership in the Church... but if they're not using that concept then I guess this is a form of personal interdicts) they're discussing are at all present for someone who unaffiliates from the Church's corporate structure but still publicly lives out his faith and publicly adheres to its tenants and belief. itn doesn't even approach. as an aside, I wonder how SSPX followers in Germany deal with this tax issue; do they affiliate as "Catholic" on their tax form and thus pay the tax, or do they not affiliate with the corporate structure of the Church while maintaining their belief system?

to the second point, the bishops need not have handled it this way at all; if Jas is correct, they have every option to not require this taxation as a condition of membership in the Church, since it is they who decide the percentages and all that. but even if he's not, the correct way to handle this would be to allow for the exact type of "partial membership" they were condemning in their statement; they should treat registration/affiliation on the official government forms with no more canonical weight than registration in a local parish is treated (registering in a parish is by no means a canonical requirement, it's a useful tool that would make marriage proceedings and other types of programs within the Church easier for someone, but not registering as a member of a parish in no way affects membership in the Church), they should allow for people to not be affiliated on the government registries but so long as they have the sacramental realities and hold to the faith and believe the tenants of faith and live out their faith (none of those things disqualify you from being unaffiliated on the government forms, as I understand) they should be members of the Church with every right to present themselves for the sacraments.

sure, the denial of the sacraments is not necessarily going to happen in a direct manner (except, likely enough, by priests who personally know an individual has in fact done this non-affiliation and has followed the bishops guidelines to tell those people not to approach; I can imagine priests even with the backing of the bishops most likely considering themselves able to turn people away if they present themselves anyway, so the should/can distinction is not necessarily as big except for the fact that you could go to a parish that doesn't know you personally) but it's generally being imposed as a penalty. just because people are being asked to self-enforce (by "should" instead of "can" or whatever) does not mean any less that they are basically being cut off from sacramental grace on the basis of not being a part of the tax-system corporate structure... so they are told 'if you don't pay, you cannot have these sacramental graces'. so I still say it's simony.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Aloysius