CHURCH TAX in Germany. Say WHAT?

[Serenade]

From my brief encouters with the state church in Sweden, weekly offerings are more of a small token gesture, while the tax supports the upkeep of the buildings and such.

 

That is what I was thinking. In the US, the weekly offering is often a significant amount.

 

I think what is somewhat bothersome about the situation in Germany is that the individual doesn't determine what his or her offering is.

 

Incidentally, I have a Catholic friend in the US (Lousiana), and she said her church wouldn't baptize infants either (and I presume other sacraments) if one hasn't regularly contributed offerings to the church. I was surprised by that, because none of the Catholic churches I have attended would do something like that.

[regentrude]

I was under the impression that each church (denomination) decided whether or not to collect the tax on their own, let the government collect the tax & disperse it, or not collect tax at all. I don't know where I got that from so it could be wrong.

 

Yes, they can decide that, but in order to be allowed to, they have to attain a specific legal status (Koerperschaft oeffentlichen Rechts). If they have this, they can opt to have the state collect for them or to collect on their own.

[Serenade]

The weekly offerings are still collected. The tax goes to the institution church (the whole Catholic or Lutheran Church); the weekly offering goes to the individual church and the needs of the congregation. Members also fund the needs of their congregation by a small sum (Kirchgeld) which is paid yearly and depends on family size/student or senior status.

The amounts given at collection are typically small sums; nobody writes checks or gives large bills - mostly change or small bills.

In some weeks, the collection is designated for a mission project, or to help a congregation that had a disaster, or to fund building repairs..... It is announced before collection what the money will be used for.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

My mom is German, and I have gone to church in Germany, but I never paid much attention to the offerings! I'm going to have to ask my cousin about this next time she comes and get her take on it, too.

[regentrude]

The article says that it extends to other Christians as well.

 

Then the author of the article is misinformed.

Most of the Freikirchen (free churches) reject the notion of the state collecting tax for the church. Their members fund the church by (voluntary) tithing.

Examples for Free churches are the Methodist church, the Adventists, the Mennonites, Baptists and a variety of other evangelical churches.

Edited September 30, 2012 by regentrude

[Mom-ninja.]

No, but it was new to me. What IS new is the refusal to extend sacraments. Does not sit well with me.

 

No, it's not new.

[Parrothead]

That is what I was thinking. In the US, the weekly offering is often a significant amount.

 

I think what is somewhat bothersome about the situation in Germany is that the individual doesn't determine what his or her offering is.

 

Incidentally, I have a Catholic friend in the US (Lousiana), and she said her church wouldn't baptize infants either (and I presume other sacraments) if one hasn't regularly contributed offerings to the church. I was surprised by that, because none of the Catholic churches I have attended would do something like that.

This is odd because not everyone uses the "assigned envelope system" in place in so many churches. Generally we use cash during the offertory at mass. Our parish has no idea how much we actually give.

 

Are you sure it is not a matter of not baptizing due to nonattendance of church itself? When I was pregnant with dd, our parish priest made sure to tell us to continue attending so dd could be baptized.

 

Also many/most Catholic churches now have baptism classes that must be attended by the parents in order for their child to be baptized.

[8circles]

Yes, they can decide that, but in order to be allowed to, they have to attain a specific legal status (Koerperschaft oeffentlichen Rechts). If they have this, they can opt to have the state collect for them or to collect on their own.

 

Thanks Regentrude - you've been helpful in my understanding here.

[8circles]

The article says that it extends to other Christians as well.

 

Could you tell me where the article came from? The link doesn't work for me & I've read other articles on this issue, but I've not found the exact one you linked.

[TranquilMind]

And, certainly no priest will check whether taxes have been payed before distributing the sacraments!

 

Perhaps not, but if you know you are unwelcome and it is "forbidden" to you, not being a state-declared taxpayer to the church, it is sort of a deterrent.

[Avila]

Yes, this is very much the same in Germany.

And, just for the record, I have never heard of anybody's "official exit" being publicly announced...

Last but not least, I think the whole issue is a very theoretical one. Why would one want to officially leave the church...to come back next Sunday?!?

And, certainly no priest will check whether taxes have been payed before distributing the sacraments!

 

Some people are leaving solely for the tax purposes and then expecting to come back the next week like nothing happened. To leave for the tax purposes, the Church is notified and told to remove them from Church rolls. So priests are being told to make contact with people upon receiving that request and counsel them on what the removal will mean.

 

Will it mean that they can no longer take Communion? Probably not, since no one stands there with a list to cross-reference. No non-Church-member should be taking Communion at a Catholic church, but it definitely happens. But it will mean that the people who have chosen to have themselves removed will no longer have access to Baptism, Marriage or Christian burial. Those things, even in the U.S., require preparation and something formal from the parish. Parishes, even here, do not offer those sacraments to non-members.

 

But many churches, Catholic and non-Catholic, restrict access to those things or ask for membership classes or some kind of preparation.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Asenik

[TranquilMind]

Could you tell me where the article came from? The link doesn't work for me & I've read other articles on this issue, but I've not found the exact one you linked.

 

The same AP news article is all over. I think I read it in a Boston paper first, but here is another link:

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/no-tax-no-blessing-german-church-insists-levy-152534553.html

[8circles]

The same AP news article is all over. I think I read it in a Boston paper first, but here is another link:

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/no-tax-no-blessing-german-church-insists-levy-152534553.html

Ah, maybe I did read it & didn't realize it was the same one. I didn't remember the reference to all Christians. I'll read it again. Thanks.

[TranquilMind]

That is not new either- it has been practiced for a long time: if you stop paying the tax, you can only do so by declaring yourself no longer a member of the Catholic Church. You have to formally leave the Church. The logic of the Catholic bishops in Germany has been that, if you leave the Church, you can no longer receive the sacraments - like with any other non-member of the church.

The only thing that IS new is that somebody formally declared that he is leaving the church but is now fighting for his right to the sacraments, and that the vatican is now evaluating the situation.

Previously, people have accepted that, if they leave the church, they can't have sacraments either - it was never an issue for debate.

 

From the article here:

Those are the people that Germany's Catholic bishops had in mind when they decreed on Sept. 20 that stopping the payment of religious taxes was "a serious lapse" and those who did so would then be excluded from a range of church activities.

"This decree makes clear that one cannot partly leave the Church," the bishops said in a statement. "It is not possible to separate the spiritual community of the Church from the institutional Church."

Wavering Catholics will now be sent letters reminding them of the consequences of avoiding the church tax, including losing access to all sacraments.

"Maybe you haven't considered the consequences of your decision and would like to reverse this step," a draft of the letter states.

Protestants have taken a less stern position, saying non-taxpayers are still welcome to attend services and take communion. But becoming a godparent, getting married in a church or taking a job in church-affiliated institutions such as hospitals or kindergartens are off-limits to those who stop paying their taxes.

 

The article says this just happened last week.

[Avila]

The article says this just happened last week.

 

What happened last week, according to what I have read, is that the Vatican affirmed the decision of the German bishops. The German bishops have been dealing with the issue on their own for quite some time.

 

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/germania-alemania-germany-cattolici-catholics-catolicos-18395/

Edited September 30, 2012 by Asenik

[8circles]

The article says that it extends to other Christians as well.

 

I just read it as saying "Catholics & Protestants", using the term 'Protestant' as-in non-Catholic. But it only applies to those churches who have opted to allow the government to collect the tax. The only one I've read specified is the Lutheran Church although there may be others. It wouldn't apply to ALL Protestants.

[regentrude]

The article says this just happened last week.

 

According to German media, what happened last week was that the conference of bishops decided to instate this procedure:

Wavering Catholics will now be sent letters reminding them of the consequences of avoiding the church tax, including losing access to all sacraments.

They will be sent letters and they will asked to talk to their priests - instead of the automatic excommunication that was the consequence up to now and that is not supported by the Vatican.

[ElizaG]

That is what I was thinking. In the US, the weekly offering is often a significant amount.

 

I think what is somewhat bothersome about the situation in Germany is that the individual doesn't determine what his or her offering is.

The complicated part is that the Church tax is not the individual's offering. Nor is it supposed to represent, or replace, that offering.

 

It's the individual's share of the state's obligation that it took on, when it seized a very large amount of the Church's assets over 100 years ago. In other words, the state has an ongoing obligation to support the Church to a considerable extent. The question is, how are they going to fund that?

 

So to me, it's not surprising that members of these churches are expected to pay the tax. If anything, it's more surprising that other Christians and non-Christians are allowed to opt out of it.

 

The whole thing would likely seem very strange to Americans, whose government was determined from the beginning to avoid these sorts of entanglements -- but internationally, it's not so "out there." And I'm pretty sure the Church in Germany would rather not have got into this condition in the first place, back in Napoleon's time. They didn't ask to have their monasteries and other property taken away, and basically be left destitute and on the public dole. It's kind of a difficult situation all around.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Eleanor

[TranquilMind]

Eleanor: The complicated part is that the Church tax is not the individual's offering. Nor is it supposed to represent, or replace, that offering.

 

It's the individual's share of the state's obligation that it took on, when it seized a very large amount of the Church's assets over 100 years ago. In other words, the state has an ongoing obligation to support the Church to a considerable extent. The question is, how are they going to fund that?

 

By stealing it from unwilling taxpayers? :tongue_smilie: Seriously, this is interesting stuff. How does the individual have an obligation for what the state did in unilaterally seizing assets? (American perspective, at least from my view).

 

 

The whole thing would likely seem very strange to Americans, whose government was determined from the beginning to avoid these sorts of entanglements -- but internationally, it's not so "out there."

 

Yeah.

 

And I'm pretty sure the Church in Germany would rather not have got into this condition in the first place, back in Napoleon's time. They didn't ask to have their monasteries and other property taken away, and basically be left destitute and on the public dole. It's kind of a difficult situation all around.

 

 

But just how will it be enforceable in the long run? Besides...they could try something new and just trust God to provide through the people, instead of extort it from them (radical, I know).

[Laura Corin]

Besides...they could try something new and just trust God to provide through the people, instead of extort it from them (radical, I know).

 

But one of the problems in the Church of England is the age of the buildings. The Church has ended up having to fund the upkeep/restoration of buildings that are cultural treasures, rather than necessarily suitable places of worship for today's circumstances. A gorgeous medieval cathedral that is much visited by tourists but hosts a small congregation is a conundrum for the Church: do you charge an entrance fee to God's house? St Paul's Cathedral in London does just that, leaving a small chapel open for drop-in worshippers and excluding tourists when the whole church is used for services. A lot of people find that very upsetting. It's an old-world problem and I don't know the solution for it.

 

ETA: and then there are the 12th century parish churches: tiny congregations, no tourists to charge.

 

Laura

Edited September 30, 2012 by Laura Corin

[TranquilMind]

Laura Corin: But one of the problems in the Church of England is the age of the buildings. The Church has ended up having to fund the upkeep/restoration of buildings that are cultural treasures, rather than necessarily suitable places of worship for today's circumstances. A gorgeous medieval cathedral that is much visited by tourists but hosts a small congregation is a conundrum for the Church: do you charge an entrance fee to God's house?

 

As God's house? No. As part of a cultural tour, having nothing to do with worshipping? I don't know. Maybe, or just take an offering for the upkeep?

 

 

 

St Paul's Cathedral in London does just that, leaving a small chapel open for drop-in worshippers and excluding tourists when the whole church is used for services. A lot of people find that very upsetting. It's an old-world problem and I don't know the solution for it.

 

Hmmm. So a tourist cannot attend a regular worship service? How would they know?

[regentrude]

By stealing it from unwilling taxpayers? :tongue_smilie: Seriously, this is interesting stuff. How does the individual have an obligation for what the state did in unilaterally seizing assets? (American perspective, at least from my view).

 

The legal setup is that the Church is an organization that charges dues from its members. Every person has the choice of either being a member or not - non-members are not asked to fund the organization. So, if you are unwilling, simply don't join. Nobody is forcing people to join churches so they can tax them.

I don't see where the problem is. Much better than expecting the non-members to fund a religious organization.

 

ETA: "The State" is a very complicated concept - because at the time when the churches lost their property, there was no such thing as a German state. Germany did not become one country until 1871.

Edited September 30, 2012 by regentrude

[ElizaG]

By stealing it from unwilling taxpayers? :tongue_smilie: Seriously, this is interesting stuff. How does the individual have an obligation for what the state did in unilaterally seizing assets? (American perspective, at least from my view).

They have an obligation because a promise was made, and it became part of the law of the country. I'm not sure why this is hard to follow. :confused: Plenty of people have to pay reparations for things that their leaders did long before their time, and that they had no part in.

 

I can see why people wouldn't be happy about this, and might try to find a way to get the law changed -- but it's no more "stealing from unwilling taxpayers" than a lot of other things are (which is a whole other kettle of fish).

[regentrude]

Hmmm. So a tourist cannot attend a regular worship service? How would they know?

 

A tourist can attend worship, sure - but a tourist can not, during service, wander around, look at artifacts, and snap pictures, because that would be disruptive and disrespectful.

[Laura Corin]

Hmmm. So a tourist cannot attend a regular worship service? How would they know?

 

Anyone can arrive at the stated time to worship at a regular service. But the doors are then shut, so no latecomers/tourists can enter. So you can come to a service without paying. You just can't go into the body of the cathedral to worship privately at other times without paying.

 

This doesn't alter the issue: how do you support ancient buildings - cathedrals, but also medieval parish churches without a tourist income - from the donations of small congregations? I don't know if the German model is the right one, but it's a problem.

 

Laura

[TranquilMind]

regentrude: The legal setup is that the Church is an organization that charges dues from its members. Every person has the choice of either being a member or not - non-members are not asked to fund the organization. So, if you are unwilling, simply don't join. Nobody is forcing people to join churches so they can tax them.

I don't see where the problem is. Much better than expecting the non-members to fund a religious organization.

 

 

Well, as your run-of-the-mill "organization", yes, I agree. But scripturally, this is a problem. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully, not under compulsion, as the Lord has prospered them. So yeah, I personally have a problem with extortion from the church. If it is the swim club down the street, for which I have no scriptural mandates, fine...charge me.

[regentrude]

Well, as your run-of-the-mill "organization", yes, I agree. But scripturally, this is a problem. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully, not under compulsion, as the Lord has prospered them. So yeah, I personally have a problem with extortion from the church. If it is the swim club down the street, for which I have no scriptural mandates, fine...charge me.

 

I see your point. But scripturally, the believer is not mandated to join any of these churches - he is free to choose a church that does not mandate taxes. If he can not cheerfully embrace the mandated state tax ( which does factor in how the Lord prospered them, because the sum depends on the income tax paid), he can cheerfully choose to support another church. And some people do.

[Mom-ninja.]

Well, as your run-of-the-mill "organization", yes, I agree. But scripturally, this is a problem. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully, not under compulsion, as the Lord has prospered them. So yeah, I personally have a problem with extortion from the church. If it is the swim club down the street, for which I have no scriptural mandates, fine...charge me.

 

 

Then don't ever move to Germany. Different country, different rules. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like the laws in another country where you can't vote.

[ElizaG]

The legal setup is that the Church is an organization that charges dues from its members. Every person has the choice of either being a member or not - non-members are not asked to fund the organization.

So, if you are unwilling, simply don't join.

I don't see where the problem is. Much h better than expecting the non-members to fund a religious organization.

I think Americans are sometimes just taken aback at the idea of any church/state connection whatsoever. And from a Christian perspective, it is kind of strange when you look at it closely. Studying the inner workings of the Church is like watching sausage being made. But somehow it works out, mostly, even with all these intersections of worldly and religious concerns (and as a believer would say, it always works out with regard to keeping the spiritual essentials and the doctrine of the faith).

 

I don't have too much trouble stomaching it myself, maybe because my faith allows for the existence of many paradoxes. (At times, those even turn out to be the best parts. :)) And as a Canadian, I'm somewhat used to these sorts of cobbled-together, handed-down arrangements. For instance, our constitution provides for funding of Catholic schools (to some much debated extent), which has led to some interesting situations.

 

ETA: "The State" is a very complicated concept - because at the time when the churches lost their property, there was no such thing as a German state. Germany did not become one country until 1871.

Yes, this is why I find much of European history so incomprehensible. It all turns into a soup in my mind. Though I really like the name "Hohenzollern." It always cheers me up. :D

Edited September 30, 2012 by Eleanor
missspeling

[ElizaG]

Well, as your run-of-the-mill "organization", yes, I agree. But scripturally, this is a problem. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully, not under compulsion, as the Lord has prospered them. So yeah, I personally have a problem with extortion from the church. If it is the swim club down the street, for which I have no scriptural mandates, fine...charge me.

TranquilMind, are you a Catholic? You seemed to be speaking on behalf of Church members earlier -- but Catholic beliefs on the issue of supporting the Church are more complex than your interpretation of this one verse would suggest.

[regentrude]

I think Americans are sometimes just taken aback at the idea of any church/state connection whatsoever.

 

Yes. In Germany, there is no constitutional separation of state and church.

People are fine with it, and interestingly that there is very little anti-Christian sentiment in Germany. I suspect one main reason is that German Christian denominations do not emphasize proselytizing - they do their thing and don't bug the nonbelievers. They do good works, run nursing homes and preschools and food pantries and are seen as positive.

 

And from a Christian perspective, it is kind of strange when you look at it closely. Studying the inner workings of the Church is like watching sausage being made. But somehow it works out (mostly).

Well, from a Christian perspective, the wealth of the Catholic Church is also very strange.

[Jane in NC]

Well, as your run-of-the-mill "organization", yes, I agree. But scripturally, this is a problem. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully, not under compulsion, as the Lord has prospered them. So yeah, I personally have a problem with extortion from the church. If it is the swim club down the street, for which I have no scriptural mandates, fine...charge me.

 

Here in the US, churches do not pay taxes which are often used to fund infrastructure for the entire community. So, theoretically, one could say that all taxpayers (not just cheerful givers) are funding these institutions. Does it follow from your argument that churches should pay taxes so that atheists are not being forced to support religious institutions?

[ElizaG]

Well, from a Christian perspective, the wealth of the Catholic Church is also very strange.

It seems, though, that quite a bit of this wealth is directly tied up in serving the spiritual, educational, and material needs of a billion Catholics, and whatever large number of non-Catholics are also being helped. Including the cathedrals and galleries visited by tourists, and those preschools and nursing homes you mentioned, and so on. We have bodies as well as souls, and there is going to be a legitimate need for stuff to go along with that fact.

 

Anyway, I'm sure it's true there are some greedy people, some waste, and some dealings I'd rather not know about. We believe that the Church has a supernatural existence, but its members are all too human. And even among those who are more or less behaving themselves, the choice of radical poverty is a charism -- a gift of the Spirit that's given more to some than to others. So there's a wide range of behaviors among Catholics, which is part of the reason we have such a diversity of callings.

 

Getting even more OT, but did you know that the Franciscan rule (for some of the more traditional orders, anyway) says that they aren't allowed to minister to the middle and upper classes? I just learned that recently. But obviously well-off folks need ministry too. I guess St. Francis decided that he would rather bind up the sores of lepers, and let someone else do the dirty work. ;)

Edited September 30, 2012 by Eleanor

[TranquilMind]

Then don't ever move to Germany. Different country, different rules. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like the laws in another country where you can't vote.

 

I won't move there. But I don't think the church should be extorting money anywhere.

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, are you a Catholic? You seemed to be speaking on behalf of Church members earlier -- but Catholic beliefs on the issue of supporting the Church are more complex than your interpretation of this one verse would suggest.

 

Not Catholic, though I attended that church for several years. But there really isn't any other way to interpret that a believer should give cheerfully, and not under compulsion. That's a pretty clear one.

[TranquilMind]

Well, from a Christian perspective, the wealth of the Catholic Church is also very strange.

 

Yes.

[ElizaG]

Not Catholic, though I attended that church for several years. But there really isn't any other way to interpret that a believer should give cheerfully, and not under compulsion. That's a pretty clear one.

I think this (i.e., different Christians' interpretations of the above) would be an interesting topic for a different thread. :) The whole German church tax issue brings in a lot of other complicating factors.

[Mrs Mungo]

By stealing it from unwilling taxpayers? :tongue_smilie: Seriously, this is interesting stuff. How does the individual have an obligation for what the state did in unilaterally seizing assets? (American perspective, at least from my view).

 

What? How is it stealing? People are *choosing* to be part of a specific congregation or not with full knowledge of the taxes involved.

 

Is it stealing for churches to be tax-exempt in the US? Everyone in the US is paying to support churches through taxation in that sense, not just congregants. eta: In the US the Catholic church benefits greatly from tax breaks. They own some seriously expensive pieces of property in NYC, Honolulu and other prime real estate that they probably couldn't afford to keep without those tax breaks. THIS is one of the Catholic church's most expensive pieces of property. It's right on Waikiki's famous beachfront.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Juniper]

I won't move there. But I don't think the church should be extorting money anywhere.

 

First, I don't think extorting means what you think it does.

Secondly, since this is a government taxing and then giving to the Jewish, Lutheran and RC churches, isn't the government the one doing the extorting?

 

(If we are going by the way you are using the word?)

[TranquilMind]

Here in the US, churches do not pay taxes which are often used to fund infrastructure for the entire community. So, theoretically, one could say that all taxpayers (not just cheerful givers) are funding these institutions. Does it follow from your argument that churches should pay taxes so that atheists are not being forced to support religious institutions?

 

Churches perform many community functions, as well, or at least they did in the past, which is why this law was passed in the first place.

 

I'm not opposed to churches paying taxes, actually. I am opposed to the selling of church services for enforced fees. That's just wrong, scripturally.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not opposed to churches paying taxes, actually. I am opposed to the selling of church services for enforced fees. That's just wrong, scripturally.

 

That's not how I read the situation.

 

I got married in the church that my parents, aunts and uncles were all married in. My parents, grandparents and others were members of the church. I went to that church when I was young, but attended a different church in high school and college. I had to pay for the use of the church and provide my own pastor (one of my uncles) because dh and I were not members of the church. This isn't about payment. It's about declaring yourself *not a member of the church* and still expecting to receive all of the benefits of being a church member.

[TranquilMind]

First, I don't think extorting means what you think it does.

Secondly, since this is a government taxing and then giving to the Jewish, Lutheran and RC churches, isn't the government the one doing the extorting?

 

(If we are going by the way you are using the word?)

 

ex·tor·tion(k-stôrshn)

n. 1. The act or an instance of extorting.

2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.

4. Something extorted.

 

Tell me how demanding taxes in exchange for ministering the sacraments isn't extortion? Because the current law says that it is ok, despite scripture? That still doesn't make it ok. The Catholic believes he MUST partake of the sacraments, or he is not in a state of grace. So he must pay for them, contrary to biblical mandate to the apostles (et al) that Jesus gave that "freely you have received, freely give."

 

It isn't as heavy handed for the Protestants, as they aren't excluded from worship or communion, but still can't marry or be buried through church services.

[Juniper]

ex·tor·tion(k-stôrshn)

n. 1. The act or an instance of extorting.

2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.

4. Something extorted.

 

Tell me how demanding taxes in exchange for ministering the sacraments isn't extortion? Because the current law says that it is ok, despite scripture? That still doesn't make it ok. The Catholic believes he MUST partake of the sacraments, or he is not in a state of grace. So he must pay for them, contrary to biblical mandate to the apostles (et al) that Jesus gave that "freely you have received, freely give."

 

It isn't as heavy handed for the Protestants, as they aren't excluded from worship or communion, but still can't marry or be buried through church services.

 

But, it isn't illegal and people have a choice on whether they are will to pay the 9% of their taxes towards that church. At less than 1% of their taxes it is not an exorbitant amount of money.

 

My point is that it is not exhortion on the part of the religious groups that benefit from the taxes.

 

Again, no one is being denied sacraments for not paying the church. Some are being denied, because thye have willingly left a church that practices closed communion (and other sacraments.)

 

I wonder does the Lutheran church in Germany practice closed communion? I know some do and some don't. If they did and someone left that church, presumably they would be in the same boat.

 

The thing to remember is that it is the government doing the taxing. The church is simply denying sacraments to non-members.....something it does everywhere.

[TranquilMind]

That's not how I read the situation.

 

I got married in the church that my parents, aunts and uncles were all married in. My parents, grandparents and others were members of the church. I went to that church when I was young, but attended a different church in high school and college. I had to pay for the use of the church and provide my own pastor (one of my uncles) because dh and I were not members of the church. This isn't about payment. It's about declaring yourself *not a member of the church* and still expecting to receive all of the benefits of being a church member.

 

That's different. You paid for a one time use of the building.

 

This law is demanding taxation to be paid (for the RCC, and to lesser extent, the other churches/synagogues) just to participate in worship.

[TranquilMind]

But, it isn't illegal and people have a choice on whether they are will to pay the 9% of their taxes towards that church. At less than 1% of their taxes it is not an exorbitant amount of money.

 

My point is that it is not exhortion on the part of the religious groups that benefit from the taxes.

 

Again, no one is being denied sacraments for not paying the church. Some are being denied, because thye have willingly left a church that practices closed communion (and other sacraments.)

 

I wonder does the Lutheran church in Germany practice closed communion? I know some do and some don't. If they did and someone left that church, presumably they would be in the same boat.

 

The thing to remember is that it is the government doing the taxing. The church is simply denying sacraments to non-members.....something it does everywhere.

 

No, the Church is denying sacraments TO CATHOLICS because they refuse to pay an enforced fee. Lots and lots of people haven't denied the faith; they have denied the enforced extraction of payment.

[ElizaG]

I'm not opposed to churches paying taxes, actually. I am opposed to the selling of church services for enforced fees. That's just wrong, scripturally.

The thing is, setting aside this tax issue, it is one of the precepts of the Church that Catholics are required to contribute financially according to our ability. Although the church authorities wouldn't normally specify a minimum dollar amount, broadly speaking, this rule would seem to be what you'd describe as an "enforced" donation. The precepts are considered a sort of bare minimum for active church membership, and breaking one of them could be a mortal sin (depending on the circumstances under which it was broken) and make them ineligible for one or more sacraments. So this is considered a serious matter.

 

We also have (to use your language) "enforced Mass attendance" and "enforced catechism exams" and other such requirements.

 

So it seems to me that your beef is not with the German situation per se, but with Catholicism altogether. Thus, this whole thread starts to seem of doubtful relevance. (Though it was educational!)

[Mrs Mungo]

That's different. You paid for a one time use of the building.

 

This law is demanding taxation to be paid (for the RCC, and to lesser extent, the other churches/synagogues) just to participate in worship.

 

No, it isn't denying them the chance to worship. It is denying them sacraments, and the church has *closed sacraments*. Your average Protestant cannot take communion in a Catholic church. If you say you aren't a professing member of that church, then you *aren't* a member and they *can* deny you sacraments on that basis.

[Juniper]

No, the Church is denying sacraments TO CATHOLICS because they refuse to pay an enforced fee. Lots and lots of people haven't denied the faith; they have denied the enforced extraction of payment.

 

The thing is, setting aside this tax issue, it is one of the precepts of the Church that Catholics are required to contribute financially according to our ability. Although the church authorities wouldn't normally specify a minimum dollar amount, broadly speaking, this rule would seem to be what you'd describe as an "enforced" donation. The precepts are considered a sort of bare minimum for active church membership, and breaking one of them could be a mortal sin (depending on the circumstances under which it was broken) and make them ineligible for one or more sacraments. So this is considered a serious matter.

 

We also have (to use your language) "enforced Mass attendance" and "enforced catechism exams" and other such requirements.

 

So it seems to me that your beef is not with the German situation per se, but with Catholicism altogether. Thus, this whole thread starts to seem of doubtful relevance. (Though it was educational!)

 

Said gently.......Maybe the issue a lack of understanding what it means to be Catholic?:confused:

 

Do you see how what you perceive as a non-Catholic is different from what Eleanor has shared as a Catholic?

[Mrs Mungo]

No, the Church is denying sacraments TO CATHOLICS because they refuse to pay an enforced fee. Lots and lots of people haven't denied the faith; they have denied the enforced extraction of payment.

 

No, they say they are not Catholics. The church is just agreeing with them.

[TranquilMind]

No, it isn't denying them the chance to worship. It is denying them sacraments, and the church has *closed sacraments*. Your average Protestant cannot take communion in a Catholic church. If you say you aren't a professing member of that church, then you *aren't* a member and they *can* deny you sacraments on that basis.

 

Oh come on. To the CATHOLIC (and I married one, who went to Seminary early on, considering the priesthood, so I'm kinda aware of this), denying the sacrament of the Eucharist IS denying the worship. The sacrament is the whole deal. It doesn't "count" without the sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

So you can argue that one all day, but it IS denying worship to a professing Catholic who refuses to pay a tax.

[Juniper]

I do really appreciate all I have learned about Germany and the system they have set up. Very interesting!!!! Thank you, Regentrude (and others) for sharing.

 

I think we had a slightly similar set up in America with families having "pews" or "benches" in church. I had always wondered where that stemmed from.