No Tax Payment, No Blessing!

[Anomaly]

Principles can have a cost/benefit evaluation.

[qfnol31]

[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]I don't think that the Catholic Church holds such a negative view of government qua government as you do. Furthermore, German politics aren't American politics. If you want to change the German system, change the government and change the people there.

This is a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the bishops. While you have a right to criticize them, ultimately they will probably know the situation better than any of us will. Regardless, you can't deny that the bishops actually have the authority or even just cause for what they're doing. Separation of Church and state is an American ideal, not a Catholic one.
[quote name='ACS67' timestamp='1349122125' post='2488871']
EXACTLY! Why are so many Catholics so THICK in getting this very simple point?
[/quote]I'm unwilling to throw out Catholic theology for the sake of political philosophy. I think that the bishops have the right to do what they're doing and am unwilling to yield on that point so long as the Church sanctions their present decision. If the Church changes her opinion and makes that known publicly, I shall recant.

As it stands, the German bishops are following a legitimate option. The question needs to be what is the best option, and that may be up for debate.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349125954' post='2488907']
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. !@@!
[/quote]Public denial of being Catholic has always been held as a greater crime than a public denial of a social teaching. That has never changed and probably never will.

Otherwise, I don't disagree with you. But each bishop has the authority to determine the course of action for his diocese.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349100172' post='2488767']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?
[/quote]

The rest of your post was worth reading, but I want to respond to these two points:

1) Germans are known for being over the top with duty, law, etc. This much has always been pretty clear. That's why I think we should be very careful about applying American Catholicism to German Catholicism. Look at the other religions in the country which also follow this same general principle. Therefore I would argue that it's not really over the top, at least from what I've read so far, especially if a person could petition a bishop on his own behalf if he can't pay it (the poor).

2) The second, though, gets to one of the general principles that's arisen. It's up to the competent authority to determine the correct course of action (the local bishop), and I think that includes what he can and cannot require from the faithful. I think overall the Church says no, it's not immoral to be made to contribute some of your material possessions to the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349131657' post='2488973']
Public denial of being Catholic has always been held as a greater crime than a public denial of a social teaching. That has never changed and probably never will.

Otherwise, I don't disagree with you. But each bishop has the authority to determine the course of action for his diocese.
[/quote]

Pretending to be Catholic and denying the faith would seem to be much worse than just denying the faith. I dislike the idea that one bishop can decide to withhold the sacraments from pro-aborts while another can decide not to withhold the sacraments from pro-aborts. That seems like relativism.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349120680' post='2488853']
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"?[/quote]
I believe it's up to the bishop how he "urges" a person to tithe. Canon 1263 takes this whole thing further, saying:

[quote]Can. 1263 After the diocesan bishop has heard the finance council and the presbyteral council, he has the right to impose a moderate tax for the needs of the diocese upon public juridic persons subject to his governance; this tax is to be proportionate to their income. He is permitted only to impose an extraordinary and moderate exaction upon other physical and juridic persons in case of grave necessity and under the same conditions, without prejudice to particular laws and customs which attribute greater rights to him.[/quote]

Now I am a theologian and not a canon lawyer for a reason, but at a quick glance I would say that Canon Law gives an insight to the previous question. I know juridical persons has a very lengthy, precise, legal definition, so I'll ignore that concern and say this does not apply to all the faithful. I want to focus on the phrase, "without prejudice to particular laws and customs which attribute greater rights to him." I think this phrase shows that the Church recognizes the ability of local law to give bishops even greater rights than they have by canon law, which is my argument above based on Canon 1259.

Canon 1274 goes on to say [quote]Can. 1274 §1. Each diocese is to have a special institute which is to collect goods or offerings for the purpose of providing, according to the norm of [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PY.HTM#2.1.0.3.3.0.281"][b]⇒[/b][/url] can. 281, for the support of clerics who offer service for the benefit of the diocese, unless provision is made for them in another way.
[/quote]

§5 adds that these should be recognized by the civil law whenever possible.

All this is to show that Canon Law repeatedly links ecclesiastical authority to civil authority. I don't think the German situation is a stretch from many of the provisions of Canon Law and therefore shouldn't be criticized on that account as unCatholic. If anything, it's an unAmerican practice.

The question should be about the prudence of the act, not the legitimacy of the act. Perhaps if this is too much of an extension of the laws, but the Vatican's acceptance seems to say no.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349131657' post='2488973']
I don't think that the Catholic Church holds such a negative view of government qua government as you do. Furthermore, German politics aren't American politics. If you want to change the German system, change the government and change the people there.

This is a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the bishops. While you have a right to criticize them, ultimately they will probably know the situation better than any of us will. Regardless, you can't deny that the bishops actually have the authority or even just cause for what they're doing. Separation of Church and state is an American ideal, not a Catholic one.

[/quote]
I have a negative view of initiation of aggression. Like theft. It doesn't matter if the thief has a political title, or not. Stalin wasn't a bad guy because he was in the government--he was a bad guy because he orchestrated the murder of people. If a private citizen dropped a bomb on innocent people, it would be murder. If a president orders bombs dropped on innocent people, it's murder. If somehow a private citizen had set up the incineration of Dresden, it would still have been murder. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Same with the internment of the Japanese in the US.

Do you have any passages on the special means by which people gain the right to take property through threat of force, or not?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349132790' post='2488982']
Pretending to be Catholic and denying the faith would seem to be much worse than just denying the faith. I dislike the idea that one bishop can decide to withhold the sacraments from pro-aborts while another can decide not to withhold the sacraments from pro-aborts. That seems like relativism.
[/quote]
That's canon law and basic Catholic teaching for 2000 years now.

If you don't believe me, look up the scandals that ensued following the Council of Nicaea. Or even better, look at St. Cyprian of Carthage's works...

Father Z wrote about this and said that he thinks it's a serious act, and under Canon 1364 it is possibly an act of apostasy.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/09/sloppy-reporting-about-new-church-tax-decision-by-bishops/

[KnightofChrist]

"The second part of canon 1263 empowers the diocesan bishop to impose an [b]extraordinary[/b] tax upon other persons, physical and juridic, in cases of [b]grave necessity[/b] and “under the same conditions.” [b]It is clear that this extraordinary tax cannot be regularly recurring and cannot be for regularly recurring diocesan needs.[/b]" - [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1464&lpg=PA1464&dq=Canon+Law+1263&source=bl&ots=GJ5PJEBq1j&sig=kkGnvW6f7OWG8eFDbOnIbH6z0Pw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0iZqUIqTEcie2wXoloDADg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Canon%20Law%201263&f=false"]New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green[/url]

Edited October 1, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349133691' post='2488993']
I have a negative view of initiation of aggression. Like theft. It doesn't matter if the thief has a political title, or not. Stalin wasn't a bad guy because he was in the government--he was a bad guy because he orchestrated the murder of people. If a private citizen dropped a bomb on innocent people, it would be murder. If a president orders bombs dropped on innocent people, it's murder. If somehow a private citizen had set up the incineration of Dresden, it would still have been murder. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Same with the internment of the Japanese in the US.[/quote]
This is a complete mixing of terms. Theft already includes the definition that a person is taking something he has no right to. Government has a right to tax, i.e. take money from the people it governs.

Murder is deliberately killing an innocent person. An A-bomb does this. A targeted bomb that kills no civilians or accidentally kills civilians is not murder. I have argued on here before, and have argued for my students, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not legitimate acts. They are not wrong because of who carried them out, but how they were carried out and against whom.

By your logic, capital punishment is intrinsically immoral, but the Church has never taught that. (There is a caveat that the place of capital punishment in present society should be limited for particular reasons, but that's a different beast altogether and changes nothing of what I've said.

[quote]CCC 2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67[/quote]

[quote]CCC 2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. the love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.[/quote]


The Catechism gives clear witness to the authority of the state to defend itself by punishing people even by death. It also states that a government can tax.

Pope John Paul II said, in [i]Centesimus annus[/i] that the government must even step in to protect the poor. Perhaps this even means a tax on the rich to provide for the poor. He wasn't specific, but again that's normally up to the government's prudential judgment.

[quote]CA §10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State.32 The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".33

These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.[/quote]

[quote]Do you have any passages on the special means by which people gain the right to take property through threat of force, or not?
[/quote]

People gain the right to take property when they act as a government and not an individual. There will be no quotes to prove my point if you refuse to accept even the idea of government as a possibility. If you accept that there can be a government, then the CCC clearly lays out what rights the government has. (And if you want a good list of the different forms of legitimate government, look up [i]Immortale Dei[/i] §36 or [i]Rerum novarum[/i] §32.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349135124' post='2489004']
"The second part of canon 1263 empowers the diocesan bishop to impose an [b]extraordinary[/b] tax upon other persons, physical and juridic, in cases of [b]grave necessity[/b] and “under the same conditions.” [b]It is clear that this extraordinary tax cannot be regularly recurring and cannot be for regularly recurring diocesan needs.[/b]" - [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1464&lpg=PA1464&dq=Canon+Law+1263&source=bl&ots=GJ5PJEBq1j&sig=kkGnvW6f7OWG8eFDbOnIbH6z0Pw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0iZqUIqTEcie2wXoloDADg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Canon%20Law%201263&f=false"]New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green[/url]
[/quote]You omitted the second half of the quote, which is unfortunately referenced on the next page (I assume).

I'll ask Fr. Beal on Wednesday. He was my classmate two years back.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349134447' post='2488997']
That's canon law and basic Catholic teaching for 2000 years now.

If you don't believe me, look up the scandals that ensued following the Council of Nicaea. Or even better, look at St. Cyprian of Carthage's works...[/quote]

I know apostasy is worse than heresy. I just believe many pro-aborts just pretend to be Catholic for votes, when they clearly don't really believe the faith.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349134447' post='2488997']Father Z wrote about this and said that he thinks it's a serious act, and under Canon 1364 it is possibly an act of apostasy.

[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/09/sloppy-reporting-about-new-church-tax-decision-by-bishops/"]http://wdtprs.com/bl...ion-by-bishops/[/url]
[/quote]

I believe it is unnecessary conflict for Catholics in Germany to face. Pay the tax or face apostasy? It is unnecessary, the bishops should just drop it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349136301' post='2489018']
I know apostasy is worse than heresy. I just believe many pro-aborts just pretend to be Catholic for votes, when they clearly don't really believe the faith.

I believe it is unnecessary conflict for Catholics in Germany to face. Pay the tax or face apostasy? It is unnecessary, the bishops should just drop it.
[/quote]
Now that I can understand better than they can't do it, but I realized that's what you were trying to say a few posts back. I also respect your reasoning for saying that here; you didn't base your claim on Church-state relations here, and I think that's a better direction for this discussion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349136214' post='2489017']
You omitted the second half of the quote, which is unfortunately referenced on the next page (I assume).

I'll ask Fr. Beal on Wednesday. He was my classmate two years back.
[/quote]


Sorry, didn't notice I did that. I had a kid screaming in my ear and I was typing it out by hand because I cannot copy and paste it. !@@!

But here it is...

"It is also clear that in order to be under the same conditions, it must be only after consultation with the diocesan finance council and presbyteral council. Finally, it is clear that it can be imposed on natural (physical) persons, either individually or gathered in associations, and on private jurdic persons; all of these qualify as “other physical and juridic persons.”"

It appears a bishop can tax his subjects but only temporally and in cases of grave necessity and not for regularly recurring diocesan needs.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349136989' post='2489021']


Sorry, didn't notice I did that. I had a kid screaming in my ear and I was typing it out by hand because I cannot copy and paste it. !@@!

But here it is...

"It is also clear that in order to be under the same conditions, it must be only after consultation with the diocesan finance council and presbyteral council. Finally, it is clear that it can be imposed on natural (physical) persons, either individually or gathered in associations, and on private jurdic persons; all of these qualify as “other physical and juridic persons.”"

It appears a bishop can tax his subjects but only temporally and in cases of grave necessity and not for regularly recurring diocesan needs.
[/quote]
I was speaking about the "without prejudice" portion. I'm reluctant to discuss the rest of this, though, because I'm not sure how to understand "juridic persons." I had a friend try to explain it to me a few minutes ago (he tried to get a degree in Canon Law, but dropped out...), and I wasn't very clear. I don't mean to apply this passage to the whole population, necessarily, but it shows how even there political laws can add to a bishop's authority.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349094609' post='2488742']
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:



"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.
[/quote]



Thank you for the answers. I'll have to think about this.