No Tax Payment, No Blessing!

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349136107' post='2489013']
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.






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.





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.
[/quote]
Again: The process by which one becomes a legitimate government thereby able to circumvent the proscription against theft.

I'm familiar with the passages. None of them say a group of men in a building writing down rules for others makes them a justly constituted government. Government is made up of men. If it's sufficient for one merely to call himself government to obtain this right, then I'm government over you, and I'll be needing you to send me 50% of your wages. I have a right. I called myself government. Now you can call yourself government of government. We can continue in infinite governmenting of ourselves. There's no explanation. You're not answering the question. If it's a matter of mere force (and the Church doesn't seem to think so), then there's never a right to oppose the government. If it's a matter of consent, then the state is done for morally.

Process by which one becomes the government. Where is it?

I've never said one couldn't be governed. I've questioned how one obtains this power which no other person has.

[qfnol31]

If you read the documents, they say human reason knows when a legitimate government is in place... not really a theological discussion to be had, but since you're in the, minority on the issue, you have to prove why they aren't legitimate, in each instance that comes up.

[KnightofChrist]

Libertas by Pope Leo XIII would be a good read too.

[Groo the Wanderer]

so did i read all the news stories wrong? i was under the impression that the tax is from the german govt. is it actually from the Church?

that would change my whole stance entirely

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349144964' post='2489094']
If you read the documents, they say human reason knows when a legitimate government is in place... not really a theological discussion to be had, but since you're in the, minority on the issue, you have to prove why they aren't legitimate, in each instance that comes up.
[/quote]
So human reason is infallible.

So we're down to force.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349146810' post='2489105']
Libertas by Pope Leo XIII would be a good read too.
[/quote]
I have. Multiple times.

[Aloysius]

certainly the Vatican is the chief legislator and has found no problem with this practice (that doesn't mean it's not simony, of course, just that the Vatican is approving of it. the Vatican has approved of simony in the past). I still hold that it stretches the law; that doesn't mean it's not what the law is as it stands, because the Vatican is the chief legislator and thus canon law ultimately means what the Vatican decides it means (which would be totally absurd for any system of law except a voluntary system like this one)

but when I say it's a stretch of the principles of the law, I really believe that... regardless of what the law is made to allow, I don't think that it should (and don't think that it should need to be rewritten to disallow this). I also already referenced the taxation portion when I said that the bishop can tax his employees (public juridical persons), which is an intra-institutional practice and therefore would be more analogous to how a corporate office would keep some profit to re-invest in the company instead of paying it all out in salaries. I felt no need to discuss the extraordinary cases in which a bishop could require taxation of non-employees; as such an emergency I would imagine could not really happen in affluent nations where the Church has protected legal status, save for some complete catastrophe.

where this all becomes a stretch is where they create a system whereby the sacraments are denied to people who do not pay the tax. I would have way less of a problem if the coercion for this form of taxation were [i]any other [/i][i]means; [/i]but that they have made membership in the Church contingent upon being a tax-paying member of the Church, and therefore made the sacraments contingent upon that tax payment--that is what is unacceptable, and that is what makes this simony, and I don't agree with stretching canon law to allow this (even if the stretching is legitimate stretching because the Vatican supports it). None of the things you have shown demonstrate any legitimacy to the denial of membership in the Church to those who do not pay up or to the denial of the sacraments to those who do not pay up.

If it were any other means other than withholding legitimate membership and withholding sacraments, then I'd be fine with going into the whole political debate as to legitimate government and what kind of coercive power it should have in terms of raising funds through taxation; but as it stands I stand against this as a form of simony because it result in the requirement to pay before one can have membership in the Church or access to the sacraments; to sell membership in the Church and to sell the sacraments in this fashion is absolutely unacceptable and disgusting in my view.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Aloysius

[homeschoolmom]

So... Okay, I'm lazy and confused (nothing new there). What I'm getting out of skimming 7 pages of posts is this:

The Church in Germany gets a $50 a month "contribution" from each Catholic in Germany. The State collects that contribution in the form of a tax. The only way to not contribute is to say, "I'm not Catholic." When you say that, the Church then turns around and says, "No Eucharist for YOU!" Why is the State in the business of collecting money on behalf of the Church??

[Anomaly]

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.

[homeschoolmom]

[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]
I will never understand the way Europeans do things.

[Winchester]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1349195373' post='2489229']
I will never understand the way Europeans do things.
[/quote]
It is only required to obey.

[Winchester]

[url="http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/sermon.html"]http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/sermon.html[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349179935' post='2489181']
So human reason is infallible.

So we're down to force.
[/quote]
I can't figure out if you did or didn't catch my point.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349180621' post='2489184']
certainly the Vatican is the chief legislator and has found no problem with this practice (that doesn't mean it's not simony, of course, just that the Vatican is approving of it. the Vatican has approved of simony in the past). I still hold that it stretches the law; that doesn't mean it's not what the law is as it stands, because the Vatican is the chief legislator and thus canon law ultimately means what the Vatican decides it means (which would be totally absurd for any system of law except a voluntary system like this one)

but when I say it's a stretch of the principles of the law, I really believe that... regardless of what the law is made to allow, I don't think that it should (and don't think that it should need to be rewritten to disallow this). I also already referenced the taxation portion when I said that the bishop can tax his employees (public juridical persons), which is an intra-institutional practice and therefore would be more analogous to how a corporate office would keep some profit to re-invest in the company instead of paying it all out in salaries. I felt no need to discuss the extraordinary cases in which a bishop could require taxation of non-employees; as such an emergency I would imagine could not really happen in affluent nations where the Church has protected legal status, save for some complete catastrophe.

where this all becomes a stretch is where they create a system whereby the sacraments are denied to people who do not pay the tax. I would have way less of a problem if the coercion for this form of taxation were [i]any other [/i][i]means; [/i]but that they have made membership in the Church contingent upon being a tax-paying member of the Church, and therefore made the sacraments contingent upon that tax payment--that is what is unacceptable, and that is what makes this simony, and I don't agree with stretching canon law to allow this (even if the stretching is legitimate stretching because the Vatican supports it). None of the things you have shown demonstrate any legitimacy to the denial of membership in the Church to those who do not pay up or to the denial of the sacraments to those who do not pay up.

If it were any other means other than withholding legitimate membership and withholding sacraments, then I'd be fine with going into the whole political debate as to legitimate government and what kind of coercive power it should have in terms of raising funds through taxation; but as it stands I stand against this as a form of simony because it result in the requirement to pay before one can have membership in the Church or access to the sacraments; to sell membership in the Church and to sell the sacraments in this fashion is absolutely unacceptable and disgusting in my view.
[/quote]
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.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349225301' post='2489418']
[url="http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/sermon.html"]http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/sermon.html[/url]
[/quote]

Minor gospel of anarchy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPXnoLAEUSQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player