Can we get an explainer from Luke or someone about the theological justification for the church tax system? I can't understand it at all. A Catholic who is baptized is always baptized, always a member of God's body, and always eligible, if properly disposed, to receive the sacraments of the church.
Can we get an explainer from Luke or someone about the theological justification for the church tax system? I can't understand it at all. A Catholic who is baptized is always baptized, always a member of God's body, and always eligible, if properly disposed, to receive the sacraments of the church.
Is there any theological basis for the idea that someone's status as a baptized member of the Body of Christ could possibly be effected by a tax payment or lack thereof? I feel like I must be misunderstanding something. (I hope it isn't the church's baptismal theology that I misunderstand.) How could this system have been allowed or tolerated?
I guess this is the real 'on the ground' question- if a Swiss Catholic who has formally exited the church requests the sacrament of reconciliation, or seeks to receive the Eucharist? Would that person be denied as if he was unbaptized?
I recall the podcast having a discussion on this. I think the limitation is more in terms of roles that you can play. For example, a disenrolled Catholic cannot be a godparent.
As a practical matter, I do not see how hypothetical Fr. Hans can be expected to know if random person in the confessional or communion line is or isn't a card carrying Catholic anymore than an American priest can be expected to know who is / is not able to receive the sacraments.
I very much hope this is the case. See my reply to Sue below, but I've read it reported that the church formally informed anyone who disenrolls from the tax that they may no longer receive the sacraments.
The Kirchensteuer “church tax” is not one that belongs to theology (a stretch from Romans 13:6-7). But there might be a much stronger canonical case for it. There was a time when some cathedrals had jails — the story of Richard Hunne in England (1514) is thought to have hastened popular support for reformation in London. But it is fair to suggest that pretty much every culture debates when to withhold sacraments— and there are about as many ways of doing this as there are particular churches. The disciplines are thought to help encourage people recognize the necessity of supporting the Church or attending church. It keeps the family together, for a time, and quite effectively. Then a new method is always needed. Ultimately, theologians leave the best way to foster this discipline (which belongs to a particular place and time) to the canon lawyers. In my diocese near DC, I’m working with a rather substantial number of individuals who were disciplined a bit too harshly. And so I’m helping them slowly slowly find the beauty of this diocese again, and to see it rooted in sacramental life.
Correct. There is no theological basis for denying sacraments based on someone’s legal standing. In practice, this happens everywhere though (in different forms and for different reasons). We don’t do things just based off of theology. It is up to canon lawyers to help the Church determine when this type of tension is an appropriate form of discernment. And on the whole they do a good job reconciling that tension and offering a bridge to theology. But a big part of the synod is recognizing that both theologians and canon lawyers need to integrate their work in a stronger more wholistic way.
I'm glad to hear this, because I remember reading something to the contrary before. In fact it was in The Pillar
"To formally leave the Church in Germany, a baptized Catholic must book an appointment at a local registry office or court, provide official documents, and pay a fee of around $35. They are given a certificate confirming that they are no longer registered and therefore not liable for the country’s church tax.
They also receive a letter from local Church officials, informing them they can no longer receive the sacraments, hold Church posts, or serve as baptismal or confirmation sponsors."
There is a part in the article that explains the history. While an oversimplification, the Church Tax was an attempt to ensure the independence of the Church relative to the State. I don’t know that theology has much to do with it.
Right, I understand somewhat the history and the political rationale. Where theology comes in would be the idea of individual's status as a member of the Catholic Church (from the Church's own perspective, not as a matter of the state's records) being tied to or determined by payment of a tax. That seems, potentially, highly problematic in relation to the Church's theology of baptism.
See also that this process of formal disaffiliation is described as 'debaptism' in some European countries. Debaptism is not possible!
Can we get an explainer from Luke or someone about the theological justification for the church tax system? I can't understand it at all. A Catholic who is baptized is always baptized, always a member of God's body, and always eligible, if properly disposed, to receive the sacraments of the church.
Is there any theological basis for the idea that someone's status as a baptized member of the Body of Christ could possibly be effected by a tax payment or lack thereof? I feel like I must be misunderstanding something. (I hope it isn't the church's baptismal theology that I misunderstand.) How could this system have been allowed or tolerated?
I guess this is the real 'on the ground' question- if a Swiss Catholic who has formally exited the church requests the sacrament of reconciliation, or seeks to receive the Eucharist? Would that person be denied as if he was unbaptized?
I recall the podcast having a discussion on this. I think the limitation is more in terms of roles that you can play. For example, a disenrolled Catholic cannot be a godparent.
As a practical matter, I do not see how hypothetical Fr. Hans can be expected to know if random person in the confessional or communion line is or isn't a card carrying Catholic anymore than an American priest can be expected to know who is / is not able to receive the sacraments.
I very much hope this is the case. See my reply to Sue below, but I've read it reported that the church formally informed anyone who disenrolls from the tax that they may no longer receive the sacraments.
The Kirchensteuer “church tax” is not one that belongs to theology (a stretch from Romans 13:6-7). But there might be a much stronger canonical case for it. There was a time when some cathedrals had jails — the story of Richard Hunne in England (1514) is thought to have hastened popular support for reformation in London. But it is fair to suggest that pretty much every culture debates when to withhold sacraments— and there are about as many ways of doing this as there are particular churches. The disciplines are thought to help encourage people recognize the necessity of supporting the Church or attending church. It keeps the family together, for a time, and quite effectively. Then a new method is always needed. Ultimately, theologians leave the best way to foster this discipline (which belongs to a particular place and time) to the canon lawyers. In my diocese near DC, I’m working with a rather substantial number of individuals who were disciplined a bit too harshly. And so I’m helping them slowly slowly find the beauty of this diocese again, and to see it rooted in sacramental life.
My understanding is that Rome told the German bishops they could not deny the sacraments to people in this situation.
Correct. There is no theological basis for denying sacraments based on someone’s legal standing. In practice, this happens everywhere though (in different forms and for different reasons). We don’t do things just based off of theology. It is up to canon lawyers to help the Church determine when this type of tension is an appropriate form of discernment. And on the whole they do a good job reconciling that tension and offering a bridge to theology. But a big part of the synod is recognizing that both theologians and canon lawyers need to integrate their work in a stronger more wholistic way.
I'm glad to hear this, because I remember reading something to the contrary before. In fact it was in The Pillar
"To formally leave the Church in Germany, a baptized Catholic must book an appointment at a local registry office or court, provide official documents, and pay a fee of around $35. They are given a certificate confirming that they are no longer registered and therefore not liable for the country’s church tax.
They also receive a letter from local Church officials, informing them they can no longer receive the sacraments, hold Church posts, or serve as baptismal or confirmation sponsors."
There is a part in the article that explains the history. While an oversimplification, the Church Tax was an attempt to ensure the independence of the Church relative to the State. I don’t know that theology has much to do with it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/04/30/in-western-european-countries-with-church-taxes-support-for-the-tradition-remains-strong/
Right, I understand somewhat the history and the political rationale. Where theology comes in would be the idea of individual's status as a member of the Catholic Church (from the Church's own perspective, not as a matter of the state's records) being tied to or determined by payment of a tax. That seems, potentially, highly problematic in relation to the Church's theology of baptism.
See also that this process of formal disaffiliation is described as 'debaptism' in some European countries. Debaptism is not possible!