"...and the duty to contribute financially to enable the Church to fulfill its functions." The grace of Time, Talent, and Treasure comes from it being freely given. If it is required or demanded, it isn't Christian.
I'm sorry, but this practice is an abomination. If Rome will not intervene simply because of money, that's also horrific. We are a faith of free will and persuasion, not coercion. I can't imagine being denied the sacraments -- burial! -- because I couldn't afford the tax.
A lot of this has fairly old historical context. As a result of concordats the state took on responsibilities to provide for the Church, the tax is the way that the government is meeting their legal requirements. Now we can have a long debate on if these concordats should be relooked at or renegotiated but the reality is in several European countries clergy and Church ministries are paid for by the government. This is totally foreign to the American mindset. Maybe indeed a change in mindset is needed but it is not as easy as flipping a switch. Almost any pastor in the US knows the difficulties of running a parish when most are immigrants coming from countries that have been ran through taxes as these parishioners are often VERY slow to give and give in very small amounts as they are not used to contributing directly to the needs of the church.
With regard specifically to confession I find it a fascinating reification of the parable in the second half of Matthew 18: we are told a story about writing off (or not) a financial debt and we are meant to understand it more abstractly as forgiveness in general - but here it is as, also, literally a financial debt, perhaps as a reminder that there is more than one way in which Catholics read Scripture (four, but I would be hard pressed to spell them all).
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. — Catechism of the Catholic Church
While I find the church tax horrible for several grave reasons, poor people not being able to pay it is not really a problem. Since it is based on income tax, below a certain income you don't have to pay anything and above that it only rises gradually.
I agree fully with your post. The German bishops should WANT to put a stop to this. It looks bad but only because it is so wrong. Stunning that so many of them want to ignore divine revelation about marriage in many ways but want to keep faithful Catholics away because they simply don't want--or can't afford--to pay 8-9% of their income to the Church. The Church in Germany should move to abolish this forthwith and learn to live in the same way that the Church does in countries without church taxes.
> That text explained that as a consequence of their filing, baptized Catholics who are no longer officially registered: May not receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, confirmation and anointing of the sick, except in danger of death;
This answers a question that I had elsewhere regarding whether people are denied confession. I will ask St Philip Neri and St John Vianney to pray for countries that do this, because to me it appears to be an idea from the enemy.
I know it's not exactly the same as Simony, but it's... kinda the same? You're taking away the Sacraments in return for not paying, rather than giving the Sacraments in return for paying. I mean, I guess their argument is "It's not because you didn't pay, it's because you formally defected from the Church." But it's a coerced defection, and in any case IDK if a civil process can/should count as a formal defection for canonical purposes. They are two different legal systems. That's why we don't count courthouse weddings as canonically valid for Catholics, right?
I am usually not a libertarian, but there's nothing that makes me go more #TaxationIsTheft, #NoSuchThingAsGoodGovernment, etc. than this nonsense. They couldn't have more perfectly designed a system to destroy religious institutions if they'd tried. The incentive calculation is a disaster. The German bishops could just end it by refusing to accept the money, or by telling all the faithful to do the formal defection en masse and keep receiving the Sacraments. But **who would do that** when the money is rolling in?
Actually, the requirement that Catholics get married in a Catholic Church by a priest came from the Council of Trent which was responding to serious misbehavior on the part of some Catholics. Before this change, marriage vows between 2 adult members of opposite sexes was considered binding, even if no one else witnessed the vows. So someone could convince someone else to have sex with them and then deny there had ever been any vows. The new rules fixed that problem. So for Protestants the Church considers courthouse weddings valid, but not for Catholics.
Hi Sue. Most of what you post here is correct, but the Church does not recognize any courthouse/JOP marriages as valid, including those involving Protestants. Because we Catholics administer the sacrament of marriage to each other with a priest or deacon as a witness, we also recognize as valid Protestant marriages that take are witnessed by a Protestant cleric. As such, those entering the Church can have their marriages blessed but the Church won't remarry someone. Not so with a couple married by courthouse ceremony. Those folks, whether they were Catholic or Protestant at the time of the ceremony, can be married "again"--really for the first time--in the Church.
@Kevin, I'm sorry, but you're actually incorrect about Protestant marriages: two baptized Protestants who exchange vows before a JP are validly married in the eyes of the Church assuming neither of them have impediments. Protestants are not bound to form like Catholics/Orthodox are, and are therefore not bound to the form requirements that Catholics are, including a clergyman receiving the vows (Canon 1117 touches on this regarding Catholics, but either way canon law is not binding on Protestants). It should also be mentioned that in extraordinary cases for Catholics where there are no clerics around, two Catholics can be married in the presence of a layman and two witnesses (Canon 1112).
There's also the matter of merely natural, non-sacramental marriages involving someone who isn't baptized. Two non-baptized people getting married in a courthouse is a valid marriage, even though it isn't Sacramental, and a non-baptized person marrying a baptized non-Catholic would also be valid and non-sacramental. In the case of a Catholic being involved, however, there would have to be dispensations of both disparity of cult and of form given for the marriage to go ahead and be done in a courthouse and be a valid, non-Sacramental marriage, otherwise it would be invalid. A marriage is Sacramental due to both parties being baptized, not because a cleric makes it so (Canon 1055).
Source: I'm a Nullity Sponsor, though I'm not a canon lawyer.
EDIT: Also, Protestants who are validly married have no need to get their marriage blessed (i.e. convalidated) by the Church: it is a valid natural, Sacramental marriage so nothing needs to be done. A convalidation is not a blessing, it is a wedding and only to be done if it is discovered the couple was invalidly married.
Hmmm. I'm not in a position to go and look things up, but actually the _requirement_ for Catholics to get married with a clerical witness dates back to Pope Saint Nicholas I, Nicholas the Great (†867). Presumably Trent reiterated the requirement because some (many?, not all) Protestants denied it.
I think what I wrote was from my many graduate level classes at Catholic University on 14th through 16th century Catholic history, although my focus was more on other subjects within the time period.
I find it very interesting that people who refuse to pay the Kirchensteuer are described by Bishop Bode as "someone who has left the Church". Not paying the Kirchensteuer is perceived as an act of schism. But wanting the Church to accept things which are diametrically opposed to her teachings and indefectibility are perfectly okay and should be done for the sake of accompaniment and accommodating the modern world, and should not be barred from the Eucharist. Meanwhile they debate on what Sacraments these "schismatics" should be allowed access to, including the Eucharist.
That is exactly what I was thinking. The German bishops and all the people involved in their synod are completely greedy hypocrites.
They simply want to run an NGO with pretty buildings. I wonder how many of the "lay participants" of their synod were part of the bloated bureaucracy supported by this unconscionable system.
I don't get any of it, but every baptismal form I sign stipulates the fee required; I assume it's also true for weddings, but I've only officiated one of those. The fee can be waived, but I doubt it happens often. (I likely received something for the wedding, but I can't recall with clarity.)
The Catechism does, indeed, say that Catholics are obligated to provide for the needs of the Catholic Church (See Nos. 2041-2043 for the church’s five precepts, the minimum requirements to be considered a member). Whether one should be “dis-membered” for not giving money (or paying a tax) is a question to ponder. What if a person is impoverished? Can he or she help in other ways that do not involve cash? What does one say to a person who has a residence, a vacation home, several cars, and eats at expensive restaurants, and then puts $5 is in the collection basket each week? What about the way bishops and priests use the money given to them? Buying London apartments, fancy meals, vacation homes, etc.? Should parishioners withhold their giving in these cases? Something about the German church makes me uncomfortable. I understand the requirement to care for the church, just as citizens should pay taxes. But it just seems like the focus is on the money and not on handing on the faith Jesus have to the apostles.
I am commenting out of some level of ignorance, but it seems like forced tithing. You’ve registered your religion, now you must tithe. Not tithing or reducing tithe is one powerful way to express dissatisfaction. And it seems like you lose discretion over how to support the Church. What if you want to give more to a particular religious order or apostolate. Maybe you get to specify, but it doesn’t seem that is the case. Jesus said that the “sons” of the King did not need to pay the temple tax, but asked Peter to pay it for him and Peter so as not to give offense. Matt 17:24-27. He was talking about his disciples, with himself as the King. Maybe the bishops of Germany should go fishing?
Communion for the divorced and remarried, gay "married," fornicators who don't bother attempting marriage, murderers of babies and the elderly, etc., but not for those who don't want to pay bishops to undermine Church teaching. Sounds like The German Church (TM) has their priorities straight, assuming the goodness of simony is the one Church teaching that takes precedence over all others.
“The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.”
Well, I suppose it's about on schedule. Consider the state of the Church in Germany in the early 1500s (leading to the Protestant revolt) and in the early 1000s (properly if sternly reformed led by the efforts of a sub-deacon, Hildebrand, who would continue the work as Pope Saint Gregory VII, †1085). The problem wasn't isolated to Germany, but just as now it was the rotten heart of it. In the time around 500, of course, there was that situation with all though German migrants … .
A Church tax is absurd. To keep people on the tax rolls the German church contorts itself to perverts and deviants so they'll be happy and remain taxpayers. Germany should abandon the entire church tax system, and perhaps their Churches would follow the faith again.
Funny how money obfuscates things. This is essentially a catechetical matter in my view.
If a family member formally, publicly and unrepentantly disowns and departs from his family, is the family supposed to say, "Well, none of that matters. Have supper with us whenever you want. No gratitude or reciprocity is necessary."?
And what about the parable of the man who came improperly disposed to the wedding banquet and was tossed out?
Do the sacraments possess any coherence or integrity to be upheld?
"...and the duty to contribute financially to enable the Church to fulfill its functions." The grace of Time, Talent, and Treasure comes from it being freely given. If it is required or demanded, it isn't Christian.
I'm sorry, but this practice is an abomination. If Rome will not intervene simply because of money, that's also horrific. We are a faith of free will and persuasion, not coercion. I can't imagine being denied the sacraments -- burial! -- because I couldn't afford the tax.
These countries have significant social safety nets so no one is poor in the same way they are poor in America.
I don't think the church tax is completely unreasonable. The State is collecting the tithe every Catholic should be paying.
I suspect our disagreements go much deeper.
There is an interesting article with this title and byline, "In Western European Countries With Church Taxes, Support for the Tradition Remains Strong
Though some Europeans are opting out, many view religious institutions as key contributors to the common good"
A lot of this has fairly old historical context. As a result of concordats the state took on responsibilities to provide for the Church, the tax is the way that the government is meeting their legal requirements. Now we can have a long debate on if these concordats should be relooked at or renegotiated but the reality is in several European countries clergy and Church ministries are paid for by the government. This is totally foreign to the American mindset. Maybe indeed a change in mindset is needed but it is not as easy as flipping a switch. Almost any pastor in the US knows the difficulties of running a parish when most are immigrants coming from countries that have been ran through taxes as these parishioners are often VERY slow to give and give in very small amounts as they are not used to contributing directly to the needs of the church.
The origin of these church taxes go back to when secular states expropriated land, monasteries, and churches from the Catholic Church.
With regard specifically to confession I find it a fascinating reification of the parable in the second half of Matthew 18: we are told a story about writing off (or not) a financial debt and we are meant to understand it more abstractly as forgiveness in general - but here it is as, also, literally a financial debt, perhaps as a reminder that there is more than one way in which Catholics read Scripture (four, but I would be hard pressed to spell them all).
literal, spiritual, animalogistical, and the other one.
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. — Catechism of the Catholic Church
While I find the church tax horrible for several grave reasons, poor people not being able to pay it is not really a problem. Since it is based on income tax, below a certain income you don't have to pay anything and above that it only rises gradually.
I agree fully with your post. The German bishops should WANT to put a stop to this. It looks bad but only because it is so wrong. Stunning that so many of them want to ignore divine revelation about marriage in many ways but want to keep faithful Catholics away because they simply don't want--or can't afford--to pay 8-9% of their income to the Church. The Church in Germany should move to abolish this forthwith and learn to live in the same way that the Church does in countries without church taxes.
8-9% of income tax! That's a huge difference.
I was going to comment that this "church tax" is an abomination, but you beat me to it. I agree wholeheartedly.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", not "Render unto Caesar what is Peter's"
> That text explained that as a consequence of their filing, baptized Catholics who are no longer officially registered: May not receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, confirmation and anointing of the sick, except in danger of death;
This answers a question that I had elsewhere regarding whether people are denied confession. I will ask St Philip Neri and St John Vianney to pray for countries that do this, because to me it appears to be an idea from the enemy.
I know it's not exactly the same as Simony, but it's... kinda the same? You're taking away the Sacraments in return for not paying, rather than giving the Sacraments in return for paying. I mean, I guess their argument is "It's not because you didn't pay, it's because you formally defected from the Church." But it's a coerced defection, and in any case IDK if a civil process can/should count as a formal defection for canonical purposes. They are two different legal systems. That's why we don't count courthouse weddings as canonically valid for Catholics, right?
I am usually not a libertarian, but there's nothing that makes me go more #TaxationIsTheft, #NoSuchThingAsGoodGovernment, etc. than this nonsense. They couldn't have more perfectly designed a system to destroy religious institutions if they'd tried. The incentive calculation is a disaster. The German bishops could just end it by refusing to accept the money, or by telling all the faithful to do the formal defection en masse and keep receiving the Sacraments. But **who would do that** when the money is rolling in?
Actually, the requirement that Catholics get married in a Catholic Church by a priest came from the Council of Trent which was responding to serious misbehavior on the part of some Catholics. Before this change, marriage vows between 2 adult members of opposite sexes was considered binding, even if no one else witnessed the vows. So someone could convince someone else to have sex with them and then deny there had ever been any vows. The new rules fixed that problem. So for Protestants the Church considers courthouse weddings valid, but not for Catholics.
Hi Sue. Most of what you post here is correct, but the Church does not recognize any courthouse/JOP marriages as valid, including those involving Protestants. Because we Catholics administer the sacrament of marriage to each other with a priest or deacon as a witness, we also recognize as valid Protestant marriages that take are witnessed by a Protestant cleric. As such, those entering the Church can have their marriages blessed but the Church won't remarry someone. Not so with a couple married by courthouse ceremony. Those folks, whether they were Catholic or Protestant at the time of the ceremony, can be married "again"--really for the first time--in the Church.
@Kevin, I'm sorry, but you're actually incorrect about Protestant marriages: two baptized Protestants who exchange vows before a JP are validly married in the eyes of the Church assuming neither of them have impediments. Protestants are not bound to form like Catholics/Orthodox are, and are therefore not bound to the form requirements that Catholics are, including a clergyman receiving the vows (Canon 1117 touches on this regarding Catholics, but either way canon law is not binding on Protestants). It should also be mentioned that in extraordinary cases for Catholics where there are no clerics around, two Catholics can be married in the presence of a layman and two witnesses (Canon 1112).
There's also the matter of merely natural, non-sacramental marriages involving someone who isn't baptized. Two non-baptized people getting married in a courthouse is a valid marriage, even though it isn't Sacramental, and a non-baptized person marrying a baptized non-Catholic would also be valid and non-sacramental. In the case of a Catholic being involved, however, there would have to be dispensations of both disparity of cult and of form given for the marriage to go ahead and be done in a courthouse and be a valid, non-Sacramental marriage, otherwise it would be invalid. A marriage is Sacramental due to both parties being baptized, not because a cleric makes it so (Canon 1055).
Source: I'm a Nullity Sponsor, though I'm not a canon lawyer.
EDIT: Also, Protestants who are validly married have no need to get their marriage blessed (i.e. convalidated) by the Church: it is a valid natural, Sacramental marriage so nothing needs to be done. A convalidation is not a blessing, it is a wedding and only to be done if it is discovered the couple was invalidly married.
Hmmm. I'm not in a position to go and look things up, but actually the _requirement_ for Catholics to get married with a clerical witness dates back to Pope Saint Nicholas I, Nicholas the Great (†867). Presumably Trent reiterated the requirement because some (many?, not all) Protestants denied it.
I think what I wrote was from my many graduate level classes at Catholic University on 14th through 16th century Catholic history, although my focus was more on other subjects within the time period.
I find it very interesting that people who refuse to pay the Kirchensteuer are described by Bishop Bode as "someone who has left the Church". Not paying the Kirchensteuer is perceived as an act of schism. But wanting the Church to accept things which are diametrically opposed to her teachings and indefectibility are perfectly okay and should be done for the sake of accompaniment and accommodating the modern world, and should not be barred from the Eucharist. Meanwhile they debate on what Sacraments these "schismatics" should be allowed access to, including the Eucharist.
That is exactly what I was thinking. The German bishops and all the people involved in their synod are completely greedy hypocrites.
They simply want to run an NGO with pretty buildings. I wonder how many of the "lay participants" of their synod were part of the bloated bureaucracy supported by this unconscionable system.
How in the world is there a forced monetary obligation/payment on the sacraments????
I don't get any of it, but every baptismal form I sign stipulates the fee required; I assume it's also true for weddings, but I've only officiated one of those. The fee can be waived, but I doubt it happens often. (I likely received something for the wedding, but I can't recall with clarity.)
Thank you Hans.
The Catechism does, indeed, say that Catholics are obligated to provide for the needs of the Catholic Church (See Nos. 2041-2043 for the church’s five precepts, the minimum requirements to be considered a member). Whether one should be “dis-membered” for not giving money (or paying a tax) is a question to ponder. What if a person is impoverished? Can he or she help in other ways that do not involve cash? What does one say to a person who has a residence, a vacation home, several cars, and eats at expensive restaurants, and then puts $5 is in the collection basket each week? What about the way bishops and priests use the money given to them? Buying London apartments, fancy meals, vacation homes, etc.? Should parishioners withhold their giving in these cases? Something about the German church makes me uncomfortable. I understand the requirement to care for the church, just as citizens should pay taxes. But it just seems like the focus is on the money and not on handing on the faith Jesus have to the apostles.
…the faith Jesus gave to the apostles.
I am commenting out of some level of ignorance, but it seems like forced tithing. You’ve registered your religion, now you must tithe. Not tithing or reducing tithe is one powerful way to express dissatisfaction. And it seems like you lose discretion over how to support the Church. What if you want to give more to a particular religious order or apostolate. Maybe you get to specify, but it doesn’t seem that is the case. Jesus said that the “sons” of the King did not need to pay the temple tax, but asked Peter to pay it for him and Peter so as not to give offense. Matt 17:24-27. He was talking about his disciples, with himself as the King. Maybe the bishops of Germany should go fishing?
Communion for the divorced and remarried, gay "married," fornicators who don't bother attempting marriage, murderers of babies and the elderly, etc., but not for those who don't want to pay bishops to undermine Church teaching. Sounds like The German Church (TM) has their priorities straight, assuming the goodness of simony is the one Church teaching that takes precedence over all others.
“The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.”
Well, I suppose it's about on schedule. Consider the state of the Church in Germany in the early 1500s (leading to the Protestant revolt) and in the early 1000s (properly if sternly reformed led by the efforts of a sub-deacon, Hildebrand, who would continue the work as Pope Saint Gregory VII, †1085). The problem wasn't isolated to Germany, but just as now it was the rotten heart of it. In the time around 500, of course, there was that situation with all though German migrants … .
A Church tax is absurd. To keep people on the tax rolls the German church contorts itself to perverts and deviants so they'll be happy and remain taxpayers. Germany should abandon the entire church tax system, and perhaps their Churches would follow the faith again.
Funny how money obfuscates things. This is essentially a catechetical matter in my view.
If a family member formally, publicly and unrepentantly disowns and departs from his family, is the family supposed to say, "Well, none of that matters. Have supper with us whenever you want. No gratitude or reciprocity is necessary."?
And what about the parable of the man who came improperly disposed to the wedding banquet and was tossed out?
Do the sacraments possess any coherence or integrity to be upheld?