No Tax Payment, No Blessing!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1349063968' post='2488665']

I agree that unfaithful Catholics have no right to certain Sacraments in of itself. And I believe Aloysius and Nihil Obstat would agree as well (correct me if I am wrong.) However also, it does not matter who argues and complains about this as that has no bearing on the validity of the argument itself.

The argument being put forth is that this system meets the definition of simony.


Can someone from the other side answer two questions for me?

1. If this is not simony, then what is simony?

and then...

2. Why is this current practice NOT simony? Or if it is, why is it okay?*




*to clarify, I don't think it is okay, but I am asking because either I am right, or I am wrong and missing something.
[/quote]
The Catechism defines simony as the buying or selling of spiritual things (CCC 2121), which is what everyone says here. Then it adds in a caveat:

[quote]2122 The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."56 The competent authority determines these "offerings" in accordance with the principle that the Christian people ought to contribute to the support of the Church's ministers. "The laborer deserves his food."57[/quote]

"Beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority" here is the question. The offerings defined by the competent authority (the local conference, the diocesan bishops, and the Vatican Congregation for bishops) have defined the offerings to be this tax.

The question then comes in if the poor are being deprived of the Sacraments because of this rule, which would then recall my previous objection that it's not the poor so much making the complaint.

This tax is 8% of the [b]income tax[/b] paid to the state. If you pay $10,000 in income taxes, you are paying only $800 to this tax. That is much less than the typical 10% mentioned (though Canon Law doesn't obligate you to that amount). As Al pointed out above, the faithful are obliged to support the Church. No one is forcing people to be Catholics, but once we take that role we have certain obligations, determined by the local ordinary (and competent authority). In this situation the bishops have required a small tax through the government, which fits into Canon 1259 as cited above.

To sum up: it is not simony for the competent authority to require certain offerings from the faithful, so long as there are provisions for the poor. Said authority can use positive law (which in layman terms is human law), which the German conference has done. If a Catholic can provide the tax but chooses not to do so, then he is disobedient to canon law and his legitimate authority (i.e. the bishop). I don't know what that would mean in other circumstances, but the way the law is established in Germany at the present requires a person to denounce his Catholicism to escape the tax, which act can easily and legitimately be punished by removal from the Sacraments.

It seems there are two arguments made here. 1) The question of the national government to get involved. We have to put aside our own questions of government, especially as Americans, if we really want to know what the Church says. 2) Whether this is in fact simony, but I don't think this counts as simony as it is defined in the Catechism.


Winnie's argument, as Al rightfully pointed out, is a very separate issue about the role of Church and state.


One last point. Martin Luther keeps getting thrown around here. I just finished reading his [i]Babylonian Captivity of the Church[/i], [i]Freedom of a Christian[/i], and [i]Bondage of the Will[/i]. His objections to indulgences is much more radical than simply rejecting simony. He rejects that the Mass can be offered on behalf of people (as a work) and so also rejects that sort of payment. I think we need to be very careful about invoking Luther in this argument because his objections are very much anti-Catholic, even when we look at his basic theology alone, without recourse to his historical setting.

[qfnol31]

Oh, I missed one more Canon (1261 §2):

[quote]The diocesan bishop is bound to admonish the faithful of the obligation mentioned in can. 222, §1 and [b]in an appropriate manner to urge its observance[/b].[/quote]
But this is said within the context of my previous statement.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349094893' post='2488746']
Oh, I missed one more Canon (1261 §2):


But this is said within the context of my previous statement.
[/quote]
"Urge" now = "use armed men with magical powers attained through an as yet unexplained ceremony to compel"

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349095401' post='2488748']
"Urge" now = "use armed men with magical powers attained through an as yet unexplained ceremony to compel"
[/quote]
They are Germans after all. I think that's just their mindset.

Ever read Kant?

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349095483' post='2488750']
They are Germans after all. I think that's just their mindset.

Ever read Kant?
[/quote]
Fair enough.



In other news, all German politicians are to be issued croziers and given the right to excommunicate people.

[qfnol31]

As I'm looking around the blogosphere, I noticed Jimmy Akin did a good piece on this:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the-german-bishops-just-greedy

Fr. Z has something too, but it doesn't really say much (except that he's mostly for ensuring Catholics are proudly Catholic).

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349095483' post='2488750']
Ever read Kant?
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mgE5gSvrzk[/media]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349095693' post='2488752']
As I'm looking around the blogosphere, I noticed Jimmy Akin did a good piece on this:

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the-german-bishops-just-greedy"]http://www.ncregiste...ops-just-greedy[/url]

Fr. Z has something too, but it doesn't really say much (except that he's mostly for ensuring Catholics are proudly Catholic).
[/quote]
Read the Jimmy Akin piece and he ended with the question that came to my mind when I first read about this in depth. I think this is the crux of the matter:
[color=#000000][left][background=#ffffff]


In particular, I'd be curious to know from those [b]who think that it's a bad thing for the state to have "enforced charity" for the Church if they also think it's a bad thing for the state to conduct "enforced charity" for other causes--like healthcare, poverty relief, etc.[/b]
[b]To what extent do the arguments against enforcing charity with regard to the Church apply to other charitable causes? Just what should the state's role be?[/b]

Read more: [url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the-german-bishops-just-greedy#ixzz283T4U3xJ"]http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the-german-bishops-just-greedy#ixzz283T4U3xJ[/url][/background][/left][/color]


Jesus did say that we are to give up everything to follow him (if you so choose). Those who are professing to be Catholic and to follow Jesus are in a pickle. We are talking about money and the importance we place on it. Even many aetheist humanists recognize an obligation to society that may override personal wants. Most of us willingly and happily pay taxes to clumsy corrupt governments for the perceived benefits of an overall better life with roads, schools, police force, and fire fighters, or face the penalty of prison or confiscation by force.

Maybe the German Church's response is heavy handed and too broad of penalties. Would it be reasonable to deny marriages, funeral masses, burial on Church grounds, baptisms if you aren't contributing, but welcome mass attendance, confession, and receiving the eucharist? But then you have the problem of publically declaring a status of non-membership in the Church. Early Christians and Catholics in China kept their membership in secret, but the prosecution came from the Secular State, not the Princes of the Church. This is coming from the Church "Princes" in Germany and Catholics are instructed to obey.

Fundamentally, is it immoral to be forced to contribute some of your worldly goods for the benefit of society as a whole? And if not, at what point could the forced confiscation become immoral?

[Aloysius]

I actually referenced canon 1261 already, and by no means does "urge" imply "tell you that you cannot receive the sacraments if you don't pay up". To urge someone to do something does not mean to force them to; 1261 means the bishops can remind people that they should be supporting the Church and urge them by reminding them that it is sinful not to. how does "urging" equal "forcing"?

the offerings talked about in the canons are stipends, and they have nothing to do with the general reception of the basic sacraments, but with payment to the minister by donations and by stipends for baptisms/weddings/funerals and such. that canon does not in any way justify a fee for the reception of the sacraments to which every Catholic has the right. it is a huge leap from that to forced taxation replacing stipends and donations. moreover, the negative way that canon is worded does not actually imply that the minister can require an offering as if it were a payment; the minister cannot expect more than what is set for the offerings, but in no way does that imply that he could establish a taxation system, or a quid-pro-quo money-for-sacraments sale.

I only referenced Luther in passing and I only agree in the limited sense that the sale of indulgences was wrong. That has nothing to do with his other criticisms or the full extent of his criticism of the culture of simony (wherein he goes further into theological issues that he thought were helping to be conducive to that culture of simony) that was pretty widespread at the time.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Aloysius

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349100172' post='2488767']
Fundamentally, is it immoral to be forced to contribute some of your worldly goods for the benefit of society as a whole? And if not, at what point could the forced confiscation become immoral?
[/quote]

Catholic morality is not ends justifying means. The answer should be obvious.

[CatherineM]

There is no tax, no paperwork, no governmental requirement that would force me to deny the faith. They can take everything I own, throw me in jail, or to the lions and I will not deny the faith.

If I ever did deny the faith, I would give every priest and bishop permission to deny the sacraments to me. I would no longer be entitled to them.

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1349121079' post='2488859']
There is no tax, no paperwork, no governmental requirement that would force me to deny the faith. They can take everything I own, throw me in jail, or to the lions and I will not deny the faith.

If I ever did deny the faith, I would give every priest and bishop permission to deny the sacraments to me. I would no longer be entitled to them.
[/quote]
That's fine. The problem is the Bishops are complicit. That's the problem. They should be telling the German government to get stuffed, instead of holding hands with them.

[ACS67]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349121335' post='2488863']
That's fine. The problem is the Bishops are complicit. That's the problem. They should be telling the German government to get stuffed, instead of holding hands with them.
[/quote]
EXACTLY! Why are so many Catholics so THICK in getting this very simple point?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349122125' post='2488871']
EXACTLY! Why are so many Catholics so THICK in getting this very simple point?
[/quote]
You sure never mince words, do you?

[KnightofChrist]

If not checking "Catholic" on your tax returns in Germany is jusifcation to deny the sacraments to someone. What about German public officals who openly reject the Church's moral teachings yet claim to be Catholic? A person claims to be Catholic but doesn't check a box, doesn't pay a tax can be denied the sacraments. But support the mass murder of babies and that person probably won't be denied the sacraments. !@@!