CHURCH TAX in Germany. Say WHAT?

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, you are mistaken. I'm just not following the logic, when virtually the entirety of the Mass rests on the Eucharist. No pay, no Eucharist. I have a problem with that.

 

No, that is not the logic. The logic is-you signed an official document stating that you are withdrawing from the church. Therefore, you are no longer a professing Catholic. Therefore, you are no longer eligible to take Catholic communion.

[milovany]

Well, you are mistaken. I'm just not following the logic, when virtually the entirety of the Mass rests on the Eucharist. No pay, no Eucharist. I have a problem with that.

 

This is the point that you're not seeming to get. It's not "no pay, no Eucharist." It's "Not Catholic? No Eucharist." If someone who is Catholic now says they're not Catholic anymore (which is what they do when they sign that paper), they do not receive Holy Mysteries. It's always been that way, nothing new. If they are committed to the church no matter what (which is what they should be), then they'll attend church and not sign that paper. They'll also follow the law of the land and pay the tax.

 

In signing the paper, they know they're saying "I'm not Catholic." And they know this will mean they cannot receive the sacraments. It's what they signed away with full understanding and consent. They knowingly chose to no longer receive the Eucharist and other sacraments.

Edited October 1, 2012 by milovaný

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, if this is weighing so heavily on your mind, I guess the only option is for you to move to Germany and set up a sort of underground railroad through which you can smuggle communion wafers to lapsed Catholics. Be the change you want to see in the world, and all that.

Awesome solution. You know what....I would (if I had any desire to move to Europe).

 

But they wouldn't accept my wafers, even if I paid for them myself. I'm not an RCC priest, so I can't consecrate them.

 

Nice idea, though.

[TranquilMind]

Here is a link to a standard form that is used to declare leaving the church:

http://xaniaformularserver.de/FORM/248/PDF/3019.pdf

 

After filling in personal info, the wording in box 6 is:

 

I declare that I / my children under 14/ people listed separately

are leaving the following church or religious organization:__________

 

(You'd fill out Roman Catholic of Evangelical Lutheran)

 

Thanks. I clicked on the link, which was an exercise in futility for me.

 

I'm glad you translated. No reason is required?

[PRTGSw2K]

I have to say that your posts DO just sound like Catholic bashing. If you want to be Catholic in Germany, you need to pay the tax. If you don't want to pay the tax, than you're not going to receive the sacraments. If you don't like the law, than work to have it changed. Until that time, as a (voluntary) Catholic, you must pay the tax to receive the sacraments. It's the government's law. Either abide by it, or deal with the consequences.

[Juniper]

That's actually the best biblical point on this that I've seen yet. Good catch!

 

But in the last paragraph, I think that is the point. Romans did what they did, and He didn't expect more of them. But for those in the Temple, insiders, who ought to know better, He found this sort of moneychanging contemptible.

 

I agree, but what is happening in the last paragraph is not happening in this situation. This is like one of those moments where someone has said something that directly address your main issue here and so you bring up something similar, but different to distract from the fact that Jesus said to pay the tax. ;)

 

The situation in Germany goes something like this: I am Catholic, but I disagree with paying a "church/temple" tax to the government. Option A, do not do as Jesus did and withdraw from my religion so I will not have to pay the tax. Option B, pay the tax and model my behavior after Jesus. Option C, I really have no way to get the tax, so I need to go to my Priest and discuss the situation and see if I can possibly get help in another area that would free up the 9/10ths of % tax. Option D, decide I really am not interested in being Catholic anymore, withdraw and move on with my life. All of those are valid options.

 

None of these are extortion. None of these are the church holding sacraments hostage. None of these are the church being payed for the sacrament (which actually has some scriptural basis in the NT story listed above). Jesus drove out the money system that was over and beyond what was necessary, that is all. Not the taxes, and not the fees.

 

I may be uncomfortable with the idea, but I will not pretend that there isn't a Biblical standard, a command from Christ, to pay the tax.

[MBM]

I'm a Catholic here in the U.S. and had never heard of the German tax until now. Frankly, I'm bothered by it and do see it as pay-or-no-Eucharist, too. I'm glad it's not done here (I do give regularly and generously). The history of the tax is interesting, though, and I imagine it's just become customary and something Germans are used to doing. We have a new seminarian from Germany who is coming to our church, so I will have to ask him about this.

 

I lived in Germany back in the 80s for a short period of time with a host family that was Lutheran. What I remember most was having sing-offs after church in the front with the nearby Catholic church! People were really competitive. LOL.

[Mom-ninja.]

Sometimes it is just the principle of the thing. :confused:

 

Really? YOu are never concerned about what is happening in any other country?

 

 

Sure, however, I do not feel entitled to believe that *my* personal beliefs should in any way determine how a government in another country decides its laws.

 

 

This attitude of "my personal beliefs are not being honored in another country, and *gasp* it's horrendous. How horrible (insert name of foreign government) is. My personal interpretation and belief about (insert religion) is the correct one and it is outrageous, simply outrageous, and how can everyone not agree with me?" is just arrogant.

 

I'm done now as this is just ridiculous.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Kleine Hexe

[Serenade]

This is the point that you're not seeming to get. It's not "no pay, no Eucharist." It's "Not Catholic? No Eucharist." If someone who is Catholic now says they're not Catholic anymore (which is what they do when they sign that paper), they do not receive Holy Mysteries. It's always been that way, nothing new. If they are committed to the church no matter what (which is what they should be), then they'll attend church and not sign that paper. They'll also follow the law of the land and pay the tax.

 

In signing the paper, they know they're saying "I'm not Catholic." And they know this will mean they cannot receive the sacraments. It's what they signed away with full understanding and consent. They knowingly chose to no longer receive the Eucharist and other sacraments.

 

You know what, I'm Catholic and my mom is German, and I get what TranquilMind is saying.

 

I think this bit about the government taxing for the church is strange. Now, I don't propose that whether or not I feel it is strange amounts to a hill of beans -- other countries are free to do what they choose. I do find it very strange, however, that the Church accepts this practice. I find it odd that German Catholics have rules that are different from Catholics in other countries. So in Germany, if you are Catholic, you get to pay your weekly offering, and a church tax, whereas in the US, if you are Catholic, you pay your weekly offering. If you don't pay the tax in Germany, you are no longer considered a church member, unless you move to another country that does not have this practice, and then you can continue as a church member in good standing.

 

I understand what was said earlier about the nobles taking over the church property and therefore having the responsibility to provide support for the church. But it also seems odd to me that the Catholics and Lutherans themselves are now the ones solely responsible for this obligation, an obligation that was made by those in authority at the time. One could say that the promise was made by those who governed at the time, and thus the promise should be fulfilled by the government, rather than those who suffered loss at the hands of the government. In essence, those who suffered the loss now are the ones responsible for fulfilling the promise that was made to them by those in authority. It seems to me that all the citizens of Germany should be obligated to fulfill this promise to the churches through their taxes, and not just the Catholics and Lutherans, who were the ones actually hurt by the action of the nobles/government.

[Carol in Cal.]

There are several issues here.

 

One is the Biblical case for the Roman Catholic position in Germany. That case can be summarized as the quote about those who deny Christ will be denied by Him, and also the quote from one of the letters to the Corinthians that says that the Sacrament being taken by those who are not properly prepared can make them sick and even bring about death--so it's not as simple as saying that they are being refused something good, but rather they are being protected from a dire consequence of their repudiation of their Faith.

 

Another is the propriety of the historic Church bodies of Germany arranging for automatic payments from their population's income taxes. Here I would say that although I don't love this approach, I do see some sense to it. In Germany churches provide a lot of social services including education, nursing care, etc. as a matter of course, in a rigorous way that is not the case in the US. It makes sense, then, to have a variety of motives for allowing and for benefitting from the tax withholding over the years. Additionally, in Germany a lot of stunning historic landmarks are churches, and they have cultural value as well as current religious usage. I would rather that the religious usage continues, and that the churches retain their ownership of these properties, and I also think that there should be some public funding of this, to an extent. This seems reasonable. The use of private donations for current programs seems reasonable as well.

 

The Church's primary mission is to share the love of Christ, through Word and Sacrament ministry, so as to advance the creation of disciples by the grace of God. There are numerous secondary missions/commands/obligations as well. The complexities of how to deliver all of those is reasonably expected to result in different approaches in different countries. I'm good with that.

[regentrude]

Thanks. I clicked on the link, which was an exercise in futility for me.

 

I'm glad you translated. No reason is required?

 

No reason required.

[TranquilMind]

Serenade: You know what, I'm Catholic and my mom is German, and I get what TranquilMind is saying.

 

I think this bit about the government taxing for the church is strange. Now, I don't propose that whether or not I feel it is strange amounts to a hill of beans -- other countries are free to do what they choose. I do find it very strange, however, that the Church accepts this practice. I find it odd that German Catholics have rules that are different from Catholics in other countries. So in Germany, if you are Catholic, you get to pay your weekly offering, and a church tax, whereas in the US, if you are Catholic, you pay your weekly offering. If you don't pay the tax in Germany, you are no longer considered a church member, unless you move to another country that does not have this practice, and then you can continue as a church member in good standing.

 

 

I'm glad someone gets the issue here. This has NOTHING to do with the Catholic faith itself at all.

[Bluegoat]

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 state is not some sort of different entity from the taxpayers. Where do you think the state gets any of its funds other than from the members of the state?

 

There are similar instances in North America. The state took away the rights of Native Americans to land, or brokered agreements for it. Because they had taken away their land, which was their livelihood and rightfully theirs, the state agreed to support them in various ways in perpetuity. So they have particular contractual obligations to the decedents of those people.

 

This is no different. The church had lands from which it derived income to support itself. Those lands were seized by the state with the agreement that the state would permanently provide an alternate income for the Church.

 

The state can't just decide not to honour an obligation they agreed to, any more than they can decide not to honour any contractual agreement. Taxpayers aren't allowed to decide not to pay other taxes because they don't like what they are spent on. The taxpayer is a member of the state with both rights and duties. My town is building a really stupid convention center, but I have to pay the taxes to fund it whether I think it is dumb or support it.

 

I think it is odd that everyone doesn't have to pay it myself, since the historic situation seems to be largely unrelated to anyone agreeing that they personally want to support the church.

[WishboneDawn]

My town is building a really stupid convention center, but I have to pay the taxes to fund it whether I think it is dumb or support it.

 

Me too. Same municipality. :glare:

[WishboneDawn]

You know what, I'm Catholic and my mom is German, and I get what TranquilMind is saying.

 

I think this bit about the government taxing for the church is strange. Now, I don't propose that whether or not I feel it is strange amounts to a hill of beans -- other countries are free to do what they choose. I do find it very strange, however, that the Church accepts this practice. I find it odd that German Catholics have rules that are different from Catholics in other countries. So in Germany, if you are Catholic, you get to pay your weekly offering, and a church tax, whereas in the US, if you are Catholic, you pay your weekly offering. If you don't pay the tax in Germany, you are no longer considered a church member, unless you move to another country that does not have this practice, and then you can continue as a church member in good standing.

 

I understand what was said earlier about the nobles taking over the church property and therefore having the responsibility to provide support for the church. But it also seems odd to me that the Catholics and Lutherans themselves are now the ones solely responsible for this obligation, an obligation that was made by those in authority at the time. One could say that the promise was made by those who governed at the time, and thus the promise should be fulfilled by the government, rather than those who suffered loss at the hands of the government. In essence, those who suffered the loss now are the ones responsible for fulfilling the promise that was made to them by those in authority. It seems to me that all the citizens of Germany should be obligated to fulfill this promise to the churches through their taxes, and not just the Catholics and Lutherans, who were the ones actually hurt by the action of the nobles/government.

 

But the bolded is NOT the issue. The issue is that in order to get out of the tax you have to say you're not a Catholic anymore.

 

This has been said over and over again.

 

Non-Catholics don't get the eucharist in a Catholic church. That is how it's always been. The church should now roll over and accept that it's okay for adults to deny their religion and lie to the state and start slipping them the wafer anyway? What a way to demean the church and it's followers.

[Carol in Cal.]

But the bolded is NOT the issue. The issue is that in order to get out of the tax you have to say you're not a Catholic anymore.

 

This has been said over and over again.

 

Non-Catholics don't get the eucharist in a Catholic church. That is how it's always been. The church should now roll over and accept that it's okay for adults to deny their religion and lie to the state and start slipping them the wafer anyway? What a way to demean the church and it's followers.

 

EXACTLY. And it's not just a wafer either. It is the true body of Christ. Not something to be taken lightly.

[Caitilin]

Just gotta say, I love the iteration of "slipping them the wafer" as a way of describing receiving the sacraments in a less than honorable way. :D

[LittleIzumi]

 

Well, you are mistaken. I'm just not following the logic, when virtually the entirety of the Mass rests on the Eucharist. No pay, no Eucharist. I have a problem with that.

 

If, as a PP posted and linked, it is a basic required precept of the Catholic church to require member contributions, then it makes sense that refusing to obey that precept means no sacrament. In my religion, essentially every member can receive basic sacraments, but the higher covenants may only be entered into by members following the listed commandments, including payment of tithing. If you choose to not follow that particular commandment, you can't participate in things for which it is a prerequisite. Makes sense to me. If payment is a financial problem I assume the leadership would be helping the family out, but not saying "forget that commandment."

[Juniper]

THe state is not some sort of different entity from the taxpayers. Where do you think the state gets any of its funds other than from the members of the state?

 

There are similar instances in North America. The state took away the rights of Native Americans to land, or brokered agreements for it. Because they had taken away their land, which was their livelihood and rightfully theirs, the state agreed to support them in various ways in perpetuity. So they have particular contractual obligations to the decedents of those people.

 

This is no different. The church had lands from which it derived income to support itself. Those lands were seized by the state with the agreement that the state would permanently provide an alternate income for the Church.

 

The state can't just decide not to honour an obligation they agreed to, any more than they can decide not to honour any contractual agreement. Taxpayers aren't allowed to decide not to pay other taxes because they don't like what they are spent on. The taxpayer is a member of the state with both rights and duties. My town is building a really stupid convention center, but I have to pay the taxes to fund it whether I think it is dumb or support it.

 

I think it is odd that everyone doesn't have to pay it myself, since the historic situation seems to be largely unrelated to anyone agreeing that they personally want to support the church.

 

Ding ding ding! I had this nagging thought since yesterday about the church and taxes, but could not quite place what it was. Thank you!

 

 

On a completely separate note, I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of Catholic, who would stop being Catholic over a 9/10ths % tax. I am thinking to myself about the many saints who have been martyred, suffered, and persecuted. I am just not quite understanding the logic.

 

I completely understand being a bit uncomfortable with the taxation idea from an American perspective. We are a bit triggered by that idea, but I cannot understand it as a Christian. On top of that, I cannot wrap my brain around blaming the church for a the governments rules. Change the laws, fight the tax if it is that big a deal, thrive under the governments persecution...but why the heck blame the church? :confused:

[Serenade]

But the bolded is NOT the issue. The issue is that in order to get out of the tax you have to say you're not a Catholic anymore.

 

This has been said over and over again.

 

Non-Catholics don't get the eucharist in a Catholic church. That is how it's always been. The church should now roll over and accept that it's okay for adults to deny their religion and lie to the state and start slipping them the wafer anyway? What a way to demean the church and it's followers.

 

The thing that is bothersome to me as a Catholic is that German Catholics are being treated differently from Catholics in other countries. The option of German Catholics is to either pay an extra tax, or move to a different country where they don't have to pay the tax. In a different country, they wouldn't have to pay the extra tax, and they would still be considered Catholics in good standing. Whether or not they are Catholics in good standing merely depends on which country they live in.

 

I would be OK with all this, if it were all the citizens of Germany who paid the tax, and not just the Catholics and Lutherans -- basically, the Catholics and Lutherans are paying reparations to themselves, reparations that the State as a whole should be responsible for according to the info posted earlier.

 

Interestingly enough, I've known about the church tax in Germany for a long time (I did an internship in Offenbach), but until this thread, my understanding was that a Catholic (or Lutheran) could check a box on their returns to divert some of their regular (not extra!) income taxes to the church. I never realized that they actually had to pay extra taxes, just for being Catholic :tongue_smilie: The things you learn on TWTM!

[Mimm]

 

On a completely separate note, I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of Catholic, who would stop being Catholic over a 9/10ths % tax. I am thinking to myself about the many saints who have been martyred, suffered, and persecuted. I am just not quite understanding the logic.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

This thread has been very interesting and I appreciate people who took the time to explain the situation over there. As an American, I would be very uncomfortable with the state funding a religious organization. But I completely agree with Juniper. Even if you were ethically opposed to such a situation, how does that trump your religious beliefs? If the Eucharist is so very important, how does such a small amount of money become even more important to you? Yeah, I'm not following.

[Mama2Many4]

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.

 

I would cut off my left foot to live there! :tongue_smilie:

[Mama2Many4]

As a very *very* devout cradle Catholic, I would in a heartbeat, sign up for a tax of that sort here. If that meant that the Catholic Church would be able to financially handle everything that it needs to.

 

Our parish is poor. P.O.O.R. Like, dirt poor. I am a CCD teacher and had to buy, out of my OWN money, $200 worth of school supplies for the students. Pencils, crayons, glue sticks,..you get the point. Our parish is made up of mostly elderly people. It couldn't even afford the supplies. They were erasing the answers in the workbooks. To use them again for another year.

 

My heart was touched, and although no one asked, I chose to donate all of the supplies that they needed. But most people DO NOT give a lot to the church each week. Our priest publishes the amount of revenue collected each week, and the bills. The bills FAR outweigh anything that they received. As a matter of fact, our parish is in the red each week and drawing from its savings.

 

Many Catholic churches are closing in America. They just can't afford to keep their doors open. What you view as extortion, I view as help. Members need to help keep the doors open to something they want to take part in.

 

If you are a Catholic, then you know that you have to do all in *your* power to help the church. It's really very simple. I have to say, this whole thread has rubbed me the wrong way. I may not understand what other denominations do. But I'm not about to go stating my views on how they should run things.

[mommaduck]

Ding ding ding! I had this nagging thought since yesterday about the church and taxes, but could not quite place what it was. Thank you!

 

 

On a completely separate note, I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of Catholic, who would stop being Catholic over a 9/10ths % tax. I am thinking to myself about the many saints who have been martyred, suffered, and persecuted. I am just not quite understanding the logic.

 

I completely understand being a bit uncomfortable with the taxation idea from an American perspective. We are a bit triggered by that idea, but I cannot understand it as a Christian. On top of that, I cannot wrap my brain around blaming the church for a the governments rules. Change the laws, fight the tax if it is that big a deal, thrive under the governments persecution...but why the heck blame the church? :confused:

:iagree: Especially when that tiny bit of tax is also taking into consideration wages and family size.

[Kathryn]

Before I begin, let me add a disclaimer, lest I be accused of trying to bend the world to my will. I realize that I come at this from an American perspective and that this is merely a discussion on a message board. I don't intend that my comments represent what all of humanity should follow. They're just my somewhat uneducated opinions.

 

You know what, I'm Catholic and my mom is German, and I get what TranquilMind is saying.

 

I think this bit about the government taxing for the church is strange. Now, I don't propose that whether or not I feel it is strange amounts to a hill of beans -- other countries are free to do what they choose. I do find it very strange, however, that the Church accepts this practice. I find it odd that German Catholics have rules that are different from Catholics in other countries. So in Germany, if you are Catholic, you get to pay your weekly offering, and a church tax, whereas in the US, if you are Catholic, you pay your weekly offering. If you don't pay the tax in Germany, you are no longer considered a church member, unless you move to another country that does not have this practice, and then you can continue as a church member in good standing.

 

I understand what was said earlier about the nobles taking over the church property and therefore having the responsibility to provide support for the church. But it also seems odd to me that the Catholics and Lutherans themselves are now the ones solely responsible for this obligation, an obligation that was made by those in authority at the time. One could say that the promise was made by those who governed at the time, and thus the promise should be fulfilled by the government, rather than those who suffered loss at the hands of the government. In essence, those who suffered the loss now are the ones responsible for fulfilling the promise that was made to them by those in authority. It seems to me that all the citizens of Germany should be obligated to fulfill this promise to the churches through their taxes, and not just the Catholics and Lutherans, who were the ones actually hurt by the action of the nobles/government.

 

The thing that is bothersome to me as a Catholic is that German Catholics are being treated differently from Catholics in other countries. The option of German Catholics is to either pay an extra tax, or move to a different country where they don't have to pay the tax. In a different country, they wouldn't have to pay the extra tax, and they would still be considered Catholics in good standing. Whether or not they are Catholics in good standing merely depends on which country they live in.

 

I would be OK with all this, if it were all the citizens of Germany who paid the tax, and not just the Catholics and Lutherans -- basically, the Catholics and Lutherans are paying reparations to themselves, reparations that the State as a whole should be responsible for according to the info posted earlier.

 

:iagree: To me, the issue is that it is NOT the "state" paying for their promise of long ago. If the tax is only imposed on people of certain denominations, based on which religious groups sign up to have this done, that's not really the state paying, it's an enforced tithe on those who consider themselves followers of those denominations. If it were really the state taking care of their promise, it would come from everyone's taxes. That, combined with the fact that many religious groups that weren't even around during this supposed historically qualifying event qualify to do this (although many choose not to apparently) tells me this doesn't have much to do with reparations or old promises.

 

Ding ding ding! I had this nagging thought since yesterday about the church and taxes, but could not quite place what it was. Thank you!

 

On a completely separate note, I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of Catholic, who would stop being Catholic over a 9/10ths % tax. I am thinking to myself about the many saints who have been martyred, suffered, and persecuted. I am just not quite understanding the logic.

 

I completely understand being a bit uncomfortable with the taxation idea from an American perspective. We are a bit triggered by that idea, but I cannot understand it as a Christian. On top of that, I cannot wrap my brain around blaming the church for a the governments rules. Change the laws, fight the tax if it is that big a deal, thrive under the governments persecution...but why the heck blame the church? :confused:

 

I agree with your middle paragraph. If I truly considered that the Catholic Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church or the ___ Church was THE truth, I can't imagine renouncing my faith to get out of paying a tax. As to your last paragraph though, I think the issue is that the churches involved signed up for this. They're not reluctantly collecting this money. It's to their benefit. As someone said upthread, they're collecting money from more people than are actually attending, so it works out for them financially.

 

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90177.htm

"Religion and state are separate, although a special partnership exists between the state and those religious communities that have the status of a "corporation under public law." Any religious organization may request that it be granted "public law corporation" status, which, among other things, entitles it to name prison, hospital, and military chaplains and to levy a tithe (averaging 9 percent of income tax) on its members that the state collects. Public law corporations pay a fee to the Government for this tax service; not all avail themselves of it. The decision to grant public law corporation status is made at the state level based on certain requirements, including an assurance of permanence, the size of the organization, and an indication that the organization is not hostile to the constitutional order or fundamental rights. An estimated 180 religious groups have been granted public law corporation status, including the Evangelical and Catholic Churches, the Jewish community, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Baptists, Methodists, Christian Scientists, and the Salvation Army. In June 2006, after a ten-year legal effort by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, the State of Berlin granted the organization public corporation status, but other states had not done so."

[Juniper]

Before I begin, let me add a disclaimer, lest I be accused of trying to bend the world to my will. I realize that I come at this from an American perspective and that this is merely a discussion on a message board. I don't intend that my comments represent what all of humanity should follow. They're just my somewhat uneducated opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

:iagree: To me, the issue is that it is NOT the "state" paying for their promise of long ago. If the tax is only imposed on people of certain denominations, based on which religious groups sign up to have this done, that's not really the state paying, it's an enforced tithe on those who consider themselves followers of those denominations. If it were really the state taking care of their promise, it would come from everyone's taxes. That, combined with the fact that many religious groups that weren't even around during this supposed historically qualifying event qualify to do this (although many choose not to apparently) tells me this doesn't have much to do with reparations or old promises.

 

 

 

I agree with your middle paragraph. If I truly considered that the Catholic Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church or the ___ Church was THE truth, I can't imagine renouncing my faith to get out of paying a tax. As to your last paragraph though, I think the issue is that the churches involved signed up for this. They're not reluctantly collecting this money. It's to their benefit. As someone said upthread, they're collecting money from more people than are actually attending, so it works out for them financially.

 

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90177.htm

"Religion and state are separate, although a special partnership exists between the state and those religious communities that have the status of a "corporation under public law." Any religious organization may request that it be granted "public law corporation" status, which, among other things, entitles it to name prison, hospital, and military chaplains and to levy a tithe (averaging 9 percent of income tax) on its members that the state collects. Public law corporations pay a fee to the Government for this tax service; not all avail themselves of it. The decision to grant public law corporation status is made at the state level based on certain requirements, including an assurance of permanence, the size of the organization, and an indication that the organization is not hostile to the constitutional order or fundamental rights. An estimated 180 religious groups have been granted public law corporation status, including the Evangelical and Catholic Churches, the Jewish community, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Baptists, Methodists, Christian Scientists, and the Salvation Army. In June 2006, after a ten-year legal effort by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, the State of Berlin granted the organization public corporation status, but other states had not done so."

 

Interesting! That makes it sound like many religious groups participate in this structured tax system. I wonder if that is how it works over there, for some of the bigger denominational groups.

[Kathryn]

[/b]

 

Interesting! That makes it sound like many religious groups participate in this structured tax system. I wonder if that is how it works over there, for some of the bigger denominational groups.

 

It looks to me that about 180 groups QUALIFY to have the tax collected, as they have public law corporation status. But, not all of them CHOOSE to have the state collect the tax.

[Juniper]

It looks to me that about 180 groups QUALIFY to have the tax collected, as they have public law corporation status. But, not all of them CHOOSE to have the state collect the tax.

 

First off, just so you know, foreign governments fascinate me. That is a huge part of why I have remained in this discussion. ;)

Our country's history is so short that I often wonder how other countries came to the decisions it has.

 

I was reading in Wiki this:

Germany levies a church tax, on all persons declaring themselves to be Christians, of roughly 8–9% of the income tax, which is effectively (very much depending on the social and financial situation) typically between 0.2% and 1.5% of the total income. The proceeds are shared amongst Catholic, Lutheran, and other Protestant Churches.

The church tax (Kirchensteuer) actually traces its roots back as far as the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803. It was reaffirmed in the Concordat of 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church. Today its legal basis is §140 of the Grundgesetz (the German "constitution") in connection with article 137 of the Weimar constitution. These laws originally merely allowed the churches themselves to tax their members, but in Nazi Germany, collection of church taxes was transferred to the German government. As a result, both the German government and the employer are notified of the religious affiliation of every tax payer. This system is still in effect today. Mandatory disclosure of religious affiliation to government agencies or employers constituted a violation of the original European data protection directives but is now permitted after the German government obtained an exemption.

Church tax (Kirchensteuer) is compulsory in Germany for those confessing members of a particular religious group. It is deducted at the PAYE level. The duty to pay this tax theoretically starts on the day one is christened. Anyone who wants to stop paying it has to declare in writing, at their local court of law (Amtsgericht) or registry office, that they are leaving the Church. They are then crossed off the Church registers and can no longer receive the sacraments. In addition to the government, the tax payer also must notify his employer of his religious affiliation (or lack thereof) in order to ensure proper tax withholding.

This process is also used by members of "free churches" (e.g. Baptists) to stop paying the church tax, from which the free churches do not benefit, in order to support their own church directly.

 

It sounds to me like, originally the churches were allowed to "tax" their members (something the Catholic church has written down as part of their belief system), but the government decided to take over that process for the churches. Going so far as to get an exemption from some European governing agency. I wonder how different we would view this if it was not government collecting the tax? I am pretty sure that even in America the RC collects a certain % of income. I could be very wrong on that, but I remember reading about something along those lines when I was considering Catholic private school for the kids and how much it cost. There was something about parish members paying a % of income regularly and therefore qualifying for a different private school tuition cost.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Juniper

[TranquilMind]

3Blessings4Me: My heart was touched, and although no one asked, I chose to donate all of the supplies that they needed. But most people DO NOT give a lot to the church each week. Our priest publishes the amount of revenue collected each week, and the bills. The bills FAR outweigh anything that they received. As a matter of fact, our parish is in the red each week and drawing from its savings.

 

 

If the people don't tithe, this is why they can't cover the bills, assuming ordinary bills.

 

Many Catholic churches are closing in America. They just can't afford to keep their doors open. What you view as extortion, I view as help. Members need to help keep the doors open to something they want to take part in.

 

 

 

Then the members should give. And the rich Catholic churches should help the poor ones.

[TranquilMind]

kebg11:

If I truly considered that the Catholic Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church or the ___ Church was THE truth, I can't imagine renouncing my faith to get out of paying a tax.

 

Ok. Conversely, I can't wrap my head around requiring someone to pay a tax in order to be able to SAY they are Catholic, when the Bibles says freely you have received, freely give.

 

Guess really poor people are just out of luck.