German Catholics will be denied Holy Communion if they refuse to pay church tax

Run_to_da_hills

German Catholics will be denied Holy Communion or a religious burial if they refuse to pay church tax

Worshippers must pay extra 8% on income tax bill to still be considered Catholics

Germany's Catholic Church will deny worshippers the right to Holy Communion and religious burials if people do not pay a special church tax. A newly-enforced German bishops' decree says anyone failing to pay the tax - an extra 8% of their income tax bill - will no longer be considered a Catholic. All people in Germany must pay this tax if they want to worship in either Catholic or protestant churches, or Jewish synagogues.

I don't think there is anywhere in scripture about having to pay to partake in our lords supper. How could they possibly enforce this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208520/German-Catholics-denied-Holy-Communion-religious-burial-refuse-pay-church-tax.html

Manach

Offhand, I'd suspect there is a different level of service between those who pay the tithe and don't in regard Church auxiliary services. Core Church sacraments because of their nature would be unaffected.

totus tuus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

German Catholics will be denied Holy Communion or a religious burial if they refuse to pay church tax

Worshippers must pay extra 8% on income tax bill to still be considered Catholics

Germany's Catholic Church will deny worshippers the right to Holy Communion and religious burials if people do not pay a special church tax. A newly-enforced German bishops' decree says anyone failing to pay the tax - an extra 8% of their income tax bill - will no longer be considered a Catholic. All people in Germany must pay this tax if they want to worship in either Catholic or protestant churches, or Jewish synagogues.

I don't think there is anywhere in scripture about having to pay to partake in our lords supper. How could they possibly enforce this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208520/German-Catholics-denied-Holy-Communion-religious-burial-refuse-pay-church-tax.html

The problem lies with those catholics who distance themselves from the Catholic Church in order to get out of paying Church taxes. It stands to reason that if you publicly declare you're no longer a member, how then can you avail of the Sacraments?

Onesimus

does this apply only to those who are working?

Run_to_da_hills

Onesimus wrote: »

does this apply only to those who are working?

Produce your social welfare card for exemptions.

Festus

totus tuus wrote: »

The problem lies with those catholics who distance themselves from the Catholic Church in order to get out of paying Church taxes. It stands to reason that if you publicly declare you're no longer a member, how then can you avail of the Sacraments?

I agree. Personal income tax in Germany is about 20% so for someone on e50,000 a year it equates to e16 a week - the equivalent of two packets of fags - so it is not for hardship reasons. Realistically of someone makes a public and federal declaration that they are not or no longer a Catholic and so avoiding the Church tax it is a bit disengenuous of them to turn up for Sacraments or insist on being treated as a Catholic.

That said, we should also be cautious and wary as to how this is being reported by the mainstream media as we know how they just love the Catholic Church.

What right do Catholics have to Holy Communion?
What right do we have to a religious ceremony at our burial?

If anyone wishes to answer these questions it would be benefical to include references to the appropriate Canon Law.

Festus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I don't think there is anywhere in scripture about having to pay to partake in our lords supper. How could they possibly enforce this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208520/German-Catholics-denied-Holy-Communion-religious-burial-refuse-pay-church-tax.html

Nor is there anywhere in scripture that one has to pay a fee to be a Catholic. But that's not really the point, is it.

Why would they have to enforce it? If someone who is a not a Catholic decides to go to Mass and take Holy Communion is it up to the priest to determine this and refuse them?
Similarly a foreign, say Austrian, Catholic holiday maker, in Southern Bavaria for example, turns up at Mass - are they to be refused because they did not pay the local Church Tax?

Realistically one way is for the parish to get a copy of the tax register and match it to those they know. If they are on the list of those who have declared themselves no longer to be Catholic then enforcement is as easy as how they deal with those they know personally to be Protestant, Jew, or of any other persuasion, and much the same as how they deal with someone who publically supports abortion, divorce, homosexual practice or anyone else not in good standing.
If they don't know the person personally and they actually manage to receive Holy Communion why should that matter to the Church? Surely the issue then is between the recipient and God.

There are many many people who go to Communion when they shouldn't and the reason is not always obvious to the priest so it is doubtful that enforcement is high on the German bishops agenda. In my opinion they simply want people to understand what they are doing when they declare themselves not to be Catholics.

Personally I don't believe they will set about enforcing this and anyone concerned that the might would do well to read up on Can 1364 - 1369

pauldla

totus tuus wrote: »

The problem lies with those catholics who distance themselves from the Catholic Church in order to get out of paying Church taxes. It stands to reason that if you publicly declare you're no longer a member, how then can you avail of the Sacraments?

I didn't realise it was that easy to leave the Church. Is that all you have to do, publicly declare you are no longer a member?

norrie rugger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

German Catholics will be denied Holy Communion or a religious burial if they refuse to pay church tax

Worshippers must pay extra 8% on income tax bill to still be considered Catholics

Germany's Catholic Church will deny worshippers the right to Holy Communion and religious burials if people do not pay a special church tax. A newly-enforced German bishops' decree says anyone failing to pay the tax - an extra 8% of their income tax bill - will no longer be considered a Catholic. All people in Germany must pay this tax if they want to worship in either Catholic or protestant churches, or Jewish synagogues.

I don't think there is anywhere in scripture about having to pay to partake in our lords supper. How could they possibly enforce this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208520/German-Catholics-denied-Holy-Communion-religious-burial-refuse-pay-church-tax.html

If it were only that easy to get out of the Irish Catholic church

MrPudding

I mentioned this German tax in a couple of the threads that we had after the census results came out. If such a tax existed in Ireland do you think it would have any impact of the number of people self identifying as catholic? I am thinking, in particular, of those that do not attend mass, use contraception, think the pope is an asshole, are ok with gay marriage and think transubstantiation is a metaphor.

MrP

666irishguy

I'd say the Church plans on keeping it's head well below the parapet for a long time in Ireland and introducing a tax to go to mass (which is what it would be seen as) in these economic times, where even the mention of the word tax raises the blood pressure, would probably be the thing that broke the church. Anyway's without trying to be smart, I would think that historically we in Ireland have already paid enough in terms of suffering and persecution for our right to call ourselves Catholic besides having to cough up some dough to a very wealthy organization that shouldn't really be interested in the material gains of money over the preaching of god's word and the salvation of souls. That would be the final insult.

Run_to_da_hills

There is always ways and means around something like this.

As this effects all churches and not just the RC, I could see a rise in cell groups meeting up in private houses for Bible study and communion services rather than gathering at "official" establishments.

I certainly would not want to be penalised by any government body for my beliefs on principal and would also have no intention of paying anything should the EU ever draft something like this into this country.

This was the way the apostles did it and there is no reason why it can't be repeated in this day and age.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

I mentioned this German tax in a couple of the threads that we had after the census results came out. If such a tax existed in Ireland do you think it would have any impact of the number of people self identifying as catholic? I am thinking, in particular, of those that do not attend mass, use contraception, think the pope is an asshole, are ok with gay marriage and think transubstantiation is a metaphor.

The interesting thing, though, is that the German tax is paid by large numbers of people who don't go to mass (mass attendance rate in Germany is about 15% of registered Catholics), use contraception, and may very well think the pope is an asshole, be OK with gay marriage, etc. And yet they still choose to identify as Catholics and pay the tax.

And the same, broadly speaking, is true of other countries where there is a church tax, mostly in Scandinavia. Most of the Scandinavian countries have extremely low church attendance rates, and they are famously liberal in matters of marriage and sexuality, and yet registration for the church tax runs at around 90% of the population.

From which we can draw a couple of conclusions:

1. An awful lot of people don't think of the church mainly as a club you join on the basis of a set of shared ideas or beliefs.

2. However they do think of the church, they value their church connection enough to be willing to pay non-trivial amounts of money to maintain it.

3. Unless we have some reason to think that the Irish are different from everyone else, there's no reason to think that introducing a similar scheme in Ireland would significantly affect church identification figures. (It would have some effect, certainly, but I think a surprisingly small one.)

krissovo

Lads, most will pay to protect a catholic school education for their children regardless if they are religious or not. These schools are wellfunded (certainly in Bavaria) so think of a public school education that you only have to pay a small church tax to be eligable.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I don't think there is anywhere in scripture about having to pay to partake in our lords supper. How could they possibly enforce this?

This isn't actually a new tax - Germany has operated this system for many years. The only change is that the bishops now look like they'll deny communion to those who have chosen to opt out and declare to the State, "I am no longer a Catholic".

(Personally speaking, I am opposed to a church tax system as it violstes the principle of separation of Church and State.)

As for what the Bible says about this, don't be so sure. In the New Testament the same Greek word (koinoinia) is used to refer to both the Lord's Supper and to the giving of a financial offering. The reason is that both of these acts are seen as a necessary component of being a disciple of Jesus who is joined to a community of other disciples - thuis sharing resources and fellowship. There is a strong argument, on biblical grounds, for saying that those who refuse to share financially with other believers have thereby chosen to remove themselves from the community, thus not qualifying for participation an an event which is solely for members of the believing community.

Peregrinus

PDN wrote: »

This isn't actually a new tax - Germany has operated this system for many years. The only change is that the bishops now look like they'll deny communion to those who have chosen to opt out and declare to the State, "I am no longer a Catholic".

Actually, this isn’t entirely new either. On one view, the bishops are just clarifying or restoring their long-established practice.

The way it works in Germany is this; if you are baptised in the Catholic church, the church sends a copy of the entry in the register of baptisms to the local municipality. Thereafter the state treats you as a Catholic and, when you earn income, they levy the church tax on you and remit the proceeds (after a deduction to cover the state’s cost of collecting the tax) to your diocese (the diocese you are living in, not necessarily the one you were baptised in).

And they keep doing this until you notify them, by filling out the appropriate form, that you are no longer a Catholic. When that happens, (a) the state stops collecting the church tax from you, and remitting it to the diocese, and (b) they notify the diocese that you have done this.

And, until a few years ago, the practice in the dioceses when they got such a notification was to make an entry in your baptismal register that you had left the church, and to reduce by one their count of the number of Catholics in the diocese. As far as they were concerned them, you weren’t a Catholic.

This was called into question a few years back, when the Vatican issued new instructions that, for you to leave the church, the bishop had to accept that your declaration manifested a genuine desire to separate yourself from the community (and not just a desire to, e.g., save money by avoiding the church tax). I think this happened in response to a growing phenomenon of people telling the municipal authorities that they were no longer Catholics, but continuing to present their children for baptism, to present themselves for weddings, and even to stand and vote in parish council elections. (Yes, the Catholic church in Germany has elected parish councils.)

The effect of the new instruction from the Vatican was that the bishop couldn’t treat the notification from the state authorities as proof that you had really left the church; he (or someone on his behalf) had to contact you, and investigate what it was you really wanted, and only if he was satisfied that yes, you did want to leave the church and not just to avoid the tax was he to treat you as an ex-Catholic. This could have the foreseeable result that the state might treat you as an ex-Catholic, and stop collecting the tax, while the church continued to regard you as Catholic and, e.g., give your children preference when applying for Catholic schools.

This happened in 2006 and, interestingly, it was in reliance on these new procedures that the countmeout.ie campaign began.

But there was a sharp change of direction in 2009. It turned out – no surprise here, really – that most people who wanted to leave the church weren’t that interested in talking to the bishop about it, and explaining what they really wanted, and why, and most of them ignored letters inviting them to meet, etc. In compliance with the new rules, the bishops then treated these people as still Catholic, although the reality was that they mostly weren’t. There was an increasing mismatch between peoples canonical status, and the actual reality. So, in 2009 they revoked the whole system (and, in our little corner of the world, the countmeout campaign was suspended).

So, prior to 2006 the position was pretty clear; if you filed one of these tax declarations, the church would regard you as having left. From 2006 to 2009 they wouldn’t; you had to jump through the additional hoop of communicating directly with the church authorities and persuading them that, yes, you really wanted to leave. And since 2009 the position has been confused; some dioceses reverted to the pre-2006 practice, some didn’t, and some had no notion of what to do.

This latest declaration is effectively saying that, consistently, the German dioceses will revert to the pre-2006 position. Filing a declaration with the tax authorities will result in your being treated, by the church, as having left. The declaration spells out the canonical consequences of that (which are what they always were; there’s nothing new there).

The timing’s not a complete coincidence; back in 2006, when the Vatican laid down its more restrictive interpretation, a retired professor of Canon Law called Zapp filed a declaration with the civil authorities saying that he was leaving the Catholic church, but he added a note at the bottom of his form saying that he was leaving the Catholic church as a juridical corporation organised under German law, not as a believing and worshipping community. The tax authorities duly stopped collecting the tax and notified his diocese. Zapp contacted his bishop and said that he was still a Catholic. The diocese was thrown into a bit of a spin, and after flannelling around for a bit instituted legal proceedings against the civil authorities, arguing that the relevant law didn’t permit people to partly leave the church or to file qualified declarations, and the state should either not have accepted the qualified declaration, or not have relied upon it to stop collecting the tax. The whole point of the church tax was to support the believing and worshipping community, and if Zapp told the state he was part of that community then the state should collect the church tax from him. This case has been winding its way through the German court system ever since, but a final judgment was handed down this week. The church won; you can’t (for German church tax purposes) distinguish between the church as an organisation and the church as a believing community in this way. But the case has focussed a lot of attention on the church tax and how to avoid it, and it may well result in a (further) rise in people filing declarations of non-membership. The bishops are clarifying the consequences of this and (probably) hoping to deter at least some people who might otherwise file declarations.

mdebets

PDN wrote: »

This isn't actually a new tax - Germany has operated this system for many years. The only change is that the bishops now look like they'll deny communion to those who have chosen to opt out and declare to the State, "I am no longer a Catholic".

That's has happened for years (not sure if since the beginning, but a long time at least). It was even so that you got automatically excommunicated, when you stopped paying the Church Tax.
Rome opposed that and now you get a visit from your Parish Priest instead and don't get automatically excommunicated, but still get denied the sacraments and can't hold any official position in the RCC.
This new rule coincides with a court judgment that declared that it is legal. The judgment was actually triggered by a canon lawyer who wanted to protest against the system by stopping to pay the tax.

ehcocmeo

PDN wrote: »

(Personally speaking, I am opposed to a church tax system as it violstes the principle of separation of Church and State.)

Germany Nationalised Church property. So the state has responsibility to maintain the Church's, Thus the Tax.

J C

Church Tax isn't unique to Germany ... but what is unique is the rate (8-9%) ... raising about E9 billion pa, while the rate in other European countries, that have a church tax, varies between 0.8 and 2.3%. However, the German tax is a % of income tax, while other countries levy the tax on income itself, so the gap may not be as large as it seems on first sight,
Interestingly, in Iceland, the state keeps the 'church' tax if somebody declares themselves to not belong to any church and this is also effectively the case in Italy as well.
Religious communities in Germany, who choose to collect church tax themselves, may demand that the tax authorities reveal the taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed.
... and Denmark collects the 'church' tax from everybody ... and adds a top-up of 13%.
Sweden has a burial tax that is paid by everyone (which presumably allows everyone to have a church burial, if they want one) ... and a church tax paid by church members.
In Austria, the church tax was apparently introduced by Hitler ... and in some Swiss Cantons private comanies also have to pay the church tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

A church tax or Tithe existed in Ireland up to the Irish Church Act 1869, which disestablished the Church of Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_War

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

This isn't actually a new tax - Germany has operated this system for many years. The only change is that the bishops now look like they'll deny communion to those who have chosen to opt out and declare to the State, "I am no longer a Catholic".

(Personally speaking, I am opposed to a church tax system as it violstes the principle of separation of Church and State.)

The phrase, 'No Taxation without Representation,' leaps out at me whenever I read stories like this.

If grassroots Roman Catholics actually felt that their voices were actually heard within the walls of the church, maybe they'd become more active participants. As it stands, even if it is only €13 - €14 a week or month. If an individual catholic sees no benefit beyond that of simply obeying the church. I'm not surprised they've opted out.

Personally I'd love to 'opt out' but it seems that the mechanism in Ireland to do just that has been abolished.

SD

Peregrinus

StudentDad wrote: »

The phrase, 'No Taxation without Representation,' leaps out at me whenever I read stories like this.

Well, I think it's not a coincidence that the church which has a state-imposed church tax also has a system of lay-elected councils.

StudentDad wrote: »

Personally I'd love to 'opt out' but it seems that the mechanism in Ireland to do just that has been abolished.

Not at all. You can opt out very easily. In fact, judging from what you say here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81029809&postcount=6) you already have.

If you want to write to your former bishop and tell him you've opted out, feel free.

StudentDad

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to write to your former bishop and tell him you've opted out, feel free.

Why would I bother to do that? So long as bishops continue to behave like kinglets I have little or no time for them.

Besides which http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/ under canon law it seems 'you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.'

It's a bit rich that a decision to 'sign me up' as a baby cannot be revoked by me as an adult!

SD

Peregrinus

StudentDad wrote: »

Why would I bother to do that? So long as bishops continue to behave like kinglets I have little or no time for them.

You wouldn't, unless it gave you some kind of satisfaction. There's absolutely no need for this, unless you feel the need.

StudentDad wrote: »

Besides which http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/ under canon law it seems 'you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.'

It's a bit rich that a decision to 'sign me up' as a baby cannot be revoked by me as an adult!

Countmeout is wrong. You can leave the church any time you like, without formality. Countmeout's position, I think, was that leaving should require a formal process (so that people could have the satisfaction of completing it) and, for a few years (2006-2009) there arguably was a formal process in canon law. The problem was that most people who left the church didn't bother with any formal process (for much the reason that you outline above) which resulted in most of them still being treated, for canonical purposes, as church members. So the system was abandoned.

So, no formality required; just cut your links. But if you want your departure to affect the church's estimate of how many catholics there are in Ireland, though, they have to know about it, which means you're going to have to tell them about it, and that's one of the reasons why someone leaving might choose to notify the bishop.

srsly78

J C wrote: »

Church Tax isn't unique to Germany ... but what is unique is the rate (8-9%)[/url]

It's only that high in certain states. Where I was living it was only 1% (rheinland/westphalia) in 2009.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Church Tax isn't unique to Germany ... but what is unique is the rate (8-9%)[/url]
srsly
It's only that high in certain states. Where I was living it was only 1% (rheinland/westphalia) in 2009.

You should have read my full posting in relation to the German Church tax!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Church Tax isn't unique to Germany ... but what is unique is the rate (8-9%) ... raising about E9 billion pa, while the rate in other European countries, that have a church tax, varies between 0.8 and 2.3%. However, the German tax is a % of income tax, while other countries levy the tax on income itself, so the gap may not be as large as it seems on first sight.

The church tax amounts 8 % in Wuerttemberg and Bavaria and in the remaining Lands of the Federal Republic the tax is 9% of the income tax.
You must be expressing the tax as a percentage of your income ... and not what it is based on ... which is a % of your income tax!!!

ehcocmeo

J C wrote: »

You should have read my full posting in relation to the German Church tax!!!

The church tax amounts 8 % in Wuerttemberg and Bavaria and in the remaining Lands of the Federal Republic the tax is 9% of the income tax.
You must be expressing the tax as a percentage of your income ... and not what it is based on ... which is a % of your income tax!!!

Correct, I lived there its was not that much. The German unification tax was higher.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I think it's not a coincidence that the church which has a state-imposed church tax also has a system of lay-elected councils.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't governed by elected lay councils.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church isn't governed by elected lay councils.

Well, it's governed by bishops. But in Germany it has a system of elected lay councils operating at parish level whose practical co-operation the bishops need, which in turn means the bishops have to listen to them, and they have an opportunity to influence the bishops.

It may not be much, but it's certainly more than we have in Ireland.

StudentDad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's governed by bishops. But in Germany it has a system of elected lay councils operating at parish level whose practical co-operation the bishops need, which in turn means the bishops have to listen to them, and they have an opportunity to influence the bishops.

It may not be much, but it's certainly more than we have in Ireland.

Are bishops held accountable for their actions in Germany? I'd love to see a few bishops here being held to account for their actions and/or inactions. To date I haven't seen anything resembling humility or contrition on any bishops part.

SD

Peregrinus

StudentDad wrote: »

Are bishops held accountable for their actions in Germany? I'd love to see a few bishops here being held to account for their actions and/or inactions. To date I haven't seen anything resembling humility or contrition on any bishops part.

SD

Others may know more about this than me. But, couple of points:

1. The German Catholic church has had a child abuse problem, but it hasn't been the firestorm that we've seen in Ireland or the US.

2. This may partly be because the German church is better managed. Dioceses are much bigger - Germany has 27 dioceses for 26.3 million Catholics, as compared to Ireland's 26 dioceses for 4.1 million Catholics. Plus, they are vastly better resourced (because of the church tax!), so they've traditionally had proper, professional, expert management and administration.

3. Also because of the church tax, and the broader church-state relationship in Germany, the state has traditionally supervised and inspected church institutions much more effectively than in Ireland. These factors may explain why abuse doesn't seem to have flourished in quite the way it did in Ireland.

4. Ironically, the German civil legal system has in the past viewed child abuse matters rather more lightly than we do here. Whereas the typical pattern in Ireland involves child abuse not being reported to the police, or being actively concealed, in Germany you have plenty of cases being dealt with by the police and the courts, and relatively light sentences imposed - probation act, that kind of thing, and then priests returning to ministry. And the priests weren't getting favourable treatment because they were priests; this was par for the course. People are angry about this now, but their anger isn't focussed entirely on the bishops, since plainly the problem of toleration/trivialisation of abuse wasn't just the bishops'.

5. One German bishop has resigned; that was not on account of his mismanagement of abuse by his priests, but on account of his own abuse before he became a bishop (violence in disciplining boys in a residential home of which he was the manager). By all account he did not resign with any grace, or in a spirit of repentance.

6. The German bishops moved sooner, and more effectively, than the Irish bishops to face the issue when the scandal broke. After a comparatively short period of stonewalling, the bishops commissioned an independent external investigation of the personnel files of all 27 dioceses, going back to 1945, from a secular, state-funded institute of criminology. That project, which included identifying cases where there are suspicions of sexual abuse, victim-tracing, and interviews with victims and alleged perpetrators, is expected to take three years, and still isn't complete. The bishops are committed to publishing the results in full.

7. I don't think the elected parish councils have been effective in holding bishops to account; it's not really their role. But they may well have been effective in holding priests to account. It may partly be because of parish councils that blind eyes could not be turned as often in Germany as they seem to have been in Ireland.

J C

I understand that there are elected Roman Catholic parish councils in Ireland ... but, no more than their German counterparts, they don't govern the Roman Catholic Church.

... as for no taxation without representation ... the current Irish church funding system (and the historical Christian system) of direct voluntary contributions is far more democratic ... and effective.

People don't need anybody to 'represent' them ... they simply vote with their money ... and withhold contributions, if they don't like what they see ... and increase their contributions where they do.
This is the best way to deliver a message ... rather than relying on some 'representative' to deliver it for you ... a 'representative' who may be neither willing or able to represent your views, in the first place!!!:)
... and that applies to all churches ... and not just the RCC.

StudentDad

J C wrote: »

I understand that there are elected Roman Catholic parish councils in Ireland ... but, no more than their German counterparts, they don't govern the Roman Catholic Church.

... as for no taxation without representation ... the current Irish church funding system (and the historical Christian system) of direct voluntary contributions is far more democratic ... and effective.

People don't need anybody to 'represent' them ... they simply vote with their money ... and withhold contributions, if they don't like what they see. This is the best way to deliver a message ... rather than relying on some 'representative' to deliver it for you.:)
... and that applies to all churches ... and not just the RCC.

Unfortunately that does not work in Ireland. The church here just ignores those who ask questions and expect accountability.

SD

J C

StudentDad wrote: »

Unfortunately that does not work in Ireland. The church here just ignores those who ask questions and expect accountability.

SD

Withhold your money ... and their hearts will soon follow ... and if they don't ... then financially support a different church that does accord with your views ... and leave those who don't to God to deal with them.

The point I'm making is that it is very easy to 'vote with your wallet' in a voluntary contribution situation, like in Ireland ... and all but impossible in an involuntary church tax situation with limited choice as to the destination of your tax money.

J C

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Correct, I lived there its was not that much. The German unification tax was higher.

It amounts to EUR 9 billion per year ... that's a lot of money ... without any direct accountability mechanisms to the people who pay it.
... and with the 'blunt instument' of automatic excommunication being applied to those who don't pay it.
... there is no evidence of listening to why people don't pay ... in all of this.

Wikipedia wrote:

About 70% of church revenues come from church tax. This is about €9.2 billion (in 2010).

Article 137 of the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and article 140 of the German Basic Law of 1949 are the legal basis for this practice.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

The point I'm making is that this is very easy to do in a voluntary contribution situation ... and all but impossible in an involuntary church tax situation with limited choice as to the destination of your tax money.

It may be very easy to do in a voluntary situation, but the facts of history can't be denied; we didn't do it. For whatever reason, we never used the financial muscle at our disposal as an effective tool for holding the church to account.

It may be that the sense of commitment from paying a non-trivial church tax gave German Catholics a greater involvement and feeling of entitlement to influence than Irish Catholics seem to have had.

(Not that I favour a German-style church tax. On principle, I would oppose it, in the wildly unlikely event that it was ever proposed for Ireland. But it is possible that it makes for a more involved and effective laity.)

maguffin

Surely this is an example of immorality at work...from an organisation that is incredibly wealthy, avoids paying taxes and supports corruption within its structure.

Officially the Vatican is worth 15 billion dollars ..... with 1.6 billion in stockholders alone..... in the Philippines where 85% of the 90million people are Catholic.....they rake in an average of 75 million dollars in tithes every Sunday..... they pay no taxes..... and outside of America are involved in numerous businesses......they own 60% of the land in Mexico.......

When Cardinal Sin ( Jaime Sin, former Archbishop of Manila ) was asked how he could justify living in a multimillion dollar home while most of his parish lived in bamboo shacks....he said, " My home belongs to God"

Reading the Bible passages on Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple.....one must wonder at the apparent hypocrisy of the Catholic church and their claim to represent the will of God.

And as for Germany....It was first inspired by the Weimar Constitution of 1919, and confirmed by the pact between Hitler and the Vatican in their concordat of 1933. The Kirchensteuer was made constitutional in 1949, after the Second World War. The Catholic government - that is the Christian Democrats - not only enforced the church taxation upon an unwilling populace, it put the state machinery at the disposal of the church. Thus the Government collected the tax, enforced its payment, and then handed over the money thus collected to the Church.
Before the Second World War, the German citizens used to pay an average of two or three marks a year. By 1972, the figure rose to between fifty-five and sixty marks.
In Germany, therefore, the Vatican, besides enjoying outstanding financial benefits from its skilful penetration of the giant industrial concerns (as it did in Italy and in the United States), had its coffers replenished with additional millions from the Kirchensteuer, to the tune of some 350 million dollars a year. The scheme being the result of the political Catholicism which dominated the life of post-war Germany for so long.

Benny_Cake

maguffin wrote: »

And as for Germany....It was first inspired by the Weimar Constitution of 1919, and confirmed by the pact between Hitler and the Vatican in their concordat of 1933. The Kirchensteuer was made constitutional in 1949, after the Second World War. The Catholic government - that is the Christian Democrats - not only enforced the church taxation upon an unwilling populace, it put the state machinery at the disposal of the church. Thus the Government collected the tax, enforced its payment, and then handed over the money thus collected to the Church.
Before the Second World War, the German citizens used to pay an average of two or three marks a year. By 1972, the figure rose to between fifty-five and sixty marks.
In Germany, therefore, the Vatican, besides enjoying outstanding financial benefits from its skilful penetration of the giant industrial concerns (as it did in Italy and in the United States), had its coffers replenished with additional millions from the Kirchensteuer, to the tune of some 350 million dollars a year. The scheme being the result of the political Catholicism which dominated the life of post-war Germany for so long.

Although Konrad Adenauer was a Catholic, the Christian Democrats were formed in an attempt to build a party which would include Protestants and Catholics. They are not a Catholic party. Lutherans and Reformed Christians in the Evangelical Church of Germany also pay a tax to that church, and I think (although I could be wrong) that the same applies to the Jewish community. I'm personally opposed to the notion of a church tax but it isn't an exclusively Catholic issue.

Peregrinus

And a couple of other misconceptions:

The church tax was not “first inspired by the Weimar Constitution of 1919”; it dates from the mid-nineteenth century, and replaced a system whereby churches were financed by the various German states out of general tax revenue. This in turn had replaced a system whereby churches were financed by tithes charged on land. Tithes were levied on agriculturally productive land, and the tithe system broke down as Germany urbanised.

It’s true that the Nazis confirmed the church tax in 1933. Honestly compels us, however, to point out that they later tried to abolish it, as a way of putting pressure on the Lutheran church, which was resisting attempted nationalisation. Abolishing the church tax would have been highly unpopular, and eventually the government decided that they had other, bigger battles on which to expend political capital; the question was referred to a commission of enquiry and quietly buried.

I’m not sure that it’s entirely fair to say that after 1949 the new German state “enforced the church tax on an unwilling populace”. (In fact, I’m not sure that it’s remotely fair.) After 1945 German civil society basically had to reinvent itself, and a good deal of thought went into that process. The church tax was an obvious anomaly, and serious consideration was given to abolishing it. However there was a strong sense (articulated, it is true, by the Christian Democrats) that one of the lessons that had to be learned from the Nazi era was the importance to the nation of having strong social and communal institutions and centres of moral authority where were not the state, and which had a life and an ethos independent of the state. Churches were an obvious candidate, and the church tax was seen as a mechanism of ensuring that they would be adequately resourced, which was seen as good for society. Basically, they saw churches as an important part of the social fabric, and they didn’t want that role diminished. The extraordinary persistence of the German church tax into the 21st century has to be seen in this light.

It’s true that the average amounts of church tax paid have risen dramatically since before WWII, but this is because church tax is a percentage of income tax, and average amounts of income tax paid have risen dramatically. This in turn is due to (a) inflation, and (b) the fact that average real incomes in Germany have risen dramatically since before WWII. It’s not the case that the rise in church taxes has been out of line with rises in taxes generally.

It should also be noted that the church tax in part funds expenditures which, in other countries, are funded out of general taxation. The church tax funds church-run hospitals, sports and recreation centres, social service institutions, retirement homes, kindergartens and schools, most of which are open to church members and non-members alike; in other European countries these are funded out of general or local taxation. If the church tax were to be abolished, therefore, any saving to taxpayers would be partly offset by a rise in the general income tax, or in other taxes. (And the fairly large section of society which currently pays no church tax - children, students, the retired, non-church members - would be seriously pissed off.)

Benny_Cake is correct about Jewish congregations benefiting from the church tax. In addition to the (dominant) Catholic and Lutheran churches, others participating in the church tax system include Jewish congregations, Old Catholics and a slew of independent Protestant denominations, mostly of a Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostal cast. Also included are the Mormons and the “Free Religious Communities” which, as far as I can see, are something like the Unitarian Universalists. And, despite the name, you don’t have to be a church in the theological sense to participate; the German Humanist Association receives the church tax paid by its members.

One other point is worthy of note; because they are tax-funded, the financial affairs of participating churches are required by law to be independently audited, in the same way as the financial affairs of local governments and municipalities, and the audits are public. The finances of the German churches are therefore unusually transparent.

noctis

How does this work? what id someone just keeps a bible /koran etc in their own home and works of that?

Peregrinus

noctis wrote: »

How does this work? what id someone just keeps a bible /koran etc in their own home and works of that?

This is not based on what you believe or on what religious practices you engage in, but on which religious community - if any - you identify with and participate in. You can avoid the tax by leaving your religious community (or by not being in one in the first place).

srsly78

To avoid the tax all you have to do is declare yourself an atheist (officially).

For a foreigner moving to Germany, you will have to go to the Rathaus (town hall) to register in your local area. One of the questions is what religion are you. Answer atheist if you don't like paying tax.

Benny_Cake

srsly78 wrote: »

To avoid the tax all you have to do is declare yourself an atheist (officially).

To be more accurate, all you need to do is to declare that you are leaving the church (whichever church it is). Some churches collect church tax, others don't, so you could join a church that doesn't. Even if you aren't a member of a church it doesn't follow that you are an atheist!

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be very easy to do in a voluntary situation, but the facts of history can't be denied; we didn't do it. For whatever reason, we never used the financial muscle at our disposal as an effective tool for holding the church to account.

It may be that the sense of commitment from paying a non-trivial church tax gave German Catholics a greater involvement and feeling of entitlement to influence than Irish Catholics seem to have had.

(Not that I favour a German-style church tax. On principle, I would oppose it, in the wildly unlikely event that it was ever proposed for Ireland. But it is possible that it makes for a more involved and effective laity.)

I don't see how you logically conclude that a tax enforced with the full tax collection powers of the state and backed up by the 'nuclear option' of instant and automatic excommunication, when the tax is unpaid, somehow empowers a church member to do anything other than to just pay and obey!!!

Contrast this with the Irish situation, where somebody with an issue can take it up directly with their local church authority (minister, priest, pastor, etc.) ... with the threat that they will reduce their direct payments to the said local church, if they are not satisfied. Excommunication cannot be invoked, under these circumstances ... so the 'shoe is firmly on the foot' of the church member, in these circumstances.
They may not always get what they want ... but I think they will be seriously listened to ... which won't really occur if you approach your local church and tell them that you will stop paying a national church tax that may result in a fraction of a cent reduction in the share of local church funding from a national church tax!!!
Equally, if a church member wishes to increase their contribution, or specify the exact use to which their money is to be put, they can also do so ... and there is no collection fee (which the tax authorities charge) ... so all your money goes exactly where you wish it to go. It's the most empowering system for the individual.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

To be more accurate, all you need to do is to declare that you are leaving the church (whichever church it is). Some churches collect church tax, others don't, so you could join a church that doesn't. Even if you aren't a member of a church it doesn't follow that you are an atheist!

Some other countries collect the church tax from everyone ... and if you don't specify one of a (limited) number of religious beneficiaries ... the state keeps the money ... or they split the money between the statutory religious beneficaries!!!

... also most church members wish to continue as members of their local church ... but they may wish to have their voice heard on some issue of concern to them ... and if they are not listened to, they may wish to punish their church by reducing their vountary contribution ... without suffering excommunication. None of these subtle options are available with a national church tax (where the option of decreasing payments isn't available) and it is backed up by automatic excommunication in default.

maguffin

J C wrote: »

Some other countries collect the church tax from everyone ... and if you don't specify one of a (limited) number of religious beneficiaries ... the state keeps the money ... or they split the money between the statutory religious beneficaries!!!

... also most church members wish to continue as members of their local church ... but they may wish to have their voice heard on some issue of concern to them ... and if they are not listened to, they may wish to punish their church by reducing their vountary contribution ... without suffering excommunication. None of these subtle options are available with a national church tax (where the option of decreasing payments isn't available) and it is backed up by automatic excommunication in default.

This is wrong wrong wrong!!!....how come one's affiliation to a religious organization, one which is supposed to have been set up for the 'salvation of man' (here I'm referring to the Christian Church irrespective of any label such as protestant, rcc etc) become a 'commodity' whereby the faithful must PAY for something that ultimately depends on their own deeply private and personal beliefs???? The christian church has become a 24hr religious tesco-like supermarket where if you don't pay up at the checkout, your 'commodities' (for ex. membership of the church) is taken back from you (excommunication)!!!

You cannot tax a belief....you cannot tax a person's Faith...you cannot tax a person's Spirituality!!

J C

maguffin wrote: »

This is wrong wrong wrong!!!....how come one's affiliation to a religious organization, one which is supposed to have been set up for the 'salvation of man' (here I'm referring to the Christian Church irrespective of any label such as protestant, rcc etc) become a 'commodity' whereby the faithful must PAY for something that ultimately depends on their own deeply private and personal beliefs???? The christian church has become a 24hr religious tesco-like supermarket where if you don't pay up at the checkout, your 'commodities' (for ex. membership of the church) is taken back from you (excommunication)!!!

You cannot tax a belief....you cannot tax a person's Faith...you cannot tax a person's Spirituality!!

I agree that excommunication shouldn't be exercised for merely not paying money to a church.

Our Salvation is a free gift from God.,

However, Christians come together under the direction of the Holy Spirit to form Churches - and running these churches and paying their legitimate expenses costs money.
There are sometimes nominal Christians within churches, even within powerful positions ... and if they are leading a Church into heresy or apostacy, for example, or they are simply mistaken on some issue of dogma or morality ... they should be corrected on their error.
Talking to them may help ... but if they don't listen, then reducing/eliminating your financial support to them, is a legitimate way of getting your point across ... or in any event, not supporting and assisting the dissemination of the error into which they have fallen.

maguffin

J C wrote: »

Our Salvation is a free gift from God.,

However, Christians come together under the direction of the Holy Spirit to form Churches.
There are often many nominal Christians within churches, even within some of the most powerful positions ... and if they are leading the Church into heresy or apostacy, or are simply mistaken on some issue of dogma or morality ... they should be corrected on their error.
Talking to them may help ... but if they don't listen, then reducing/eliminating your financial support to them, is a legitimate way of getting your point across ... or in any event, not supporting and assisting the dissemination of the error into which they have fallen.

You seemed to have missed the point.....that to demand payment for continued affiliation to the christian church (or any church of any denomination) with the threat of being severed from that church if you don't pay up, is morally wrong!!!

By not addressing it, I take it that you also think it is morally wrong.

If salvation was a free gift from god....then god's church should not be demanding payment for gaining access to it.

J C

maguffin wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the point.....that to demand payment for continued affiliation to the christian church (or any church of any denomination) with the threat of being severed from that church if you don't pay up, is morally wrong!!!

By not addressing it, I take it that you also think it is morally wrong.

If salvation was a free gift from god....then god's church should not be demanding payment for gaining access to it.

I agree with you.

Contributions to a church should be voluntary and their absence shouldn't incur excommunication.

StudentDad

J C wrote: »

maguffin wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the point.....that to demand payment for continued affiliation to the christian church (or any church of any denomination) with the threat of being severed from that church if you don't pay up, is morally wrong!!!

By not addressing it, I take it that you also think it is morally wrong.

If salvation was a free gift from god....then god's church should not be demanding payment for gaining access to it.

I agree with you.

Contributions to a church should be voluntary and their absence shouldn't incur excommunication.

To follow on from there - it should not be necessary to employ coercion (threatening to cut donations) just to have your say on ANY topic within a church. The RC church from what I've seen and grown up with in Ireland is one where the laity pay and toe the line and the clergy do whatever the hell they like!

SD

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

I don't see how you logically conclude that a tax enforced with the full tax collection powers of the state and backed up by the 'nuclear option' of instant and automatic excommunication, when the tax is unpaid, somehow empowers a church member to do anything other than to just pay and obey!!!

Contrast this with the Irish situation, where somebody with an issue can take it up directly with their local church authority (minister, priest, pastor, etc.) ... with the threat that they will reduce their direct payments to the said local church, if they are not satisfied. Excommunication cannot be invoked, under these circumstances ... so the 'shoe is firmly on the foot' of the church member, in these circumstances.
They may not always get what they want ... but I think they will be seriously listened to ... which won't really occur if you approach your local church and tell them that you will stop paying a national church tax that may result in a fraction of a cent reduction in the share of local church funding from a national church tax!!!
Equally, if a church member wishes to increase their contribution, or specify the exact use to which their money is to be put, they can also do so ... and there is no collection fee (which the tax authorities charge) ... so all your money goes exactly where you wish it to go. It's the most empowering system for the individual.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But if individuals don't use the power that the system seems to offer them then in what sense are they "empowered"?

The actual fact appears to be that the German laity, who pay a compulsory tax, seem to be moreinfluential in the church than the Irish laity, who pay voluntary contributions. And I'm suggesting that one possible explanation for this is that paying the tax, and opting to continue to pay the tax, gives the German laity a greater sense of involvement, of participation, of entitlement to be heard. And therefore they are more willing to speak up, and have a greater expectation of being listened to. By contrast dissatisfied Irish Catholics may (or may not) reduce their contributions to the church, but they are unlikely to seek an interview with the parish priest to tell him why, so the impact of this action, even when it is taken, is diffuse.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But if individuals don't use the power that the system seems to offer them then in what sense are they "empowered"?

The actual fact appears to be that the German laity, who pay a compulsory tax, seem to be moreinfluential in the church than the Irish laity, who pay voluntary contributions. And I'm suggesting that one possible explanation for this is that paying the tax, and opting to continue to pay the tax, gives the German laity a greater sense of involvement, of participation, of entitlement to be heard. And therefore they are more willing to speak up, and have a greater expectation of being listened to. By contrast dissatisfied Irish Catholics may (or may not) reduce their contributions to the church, but they are unlikely to seek an interview with the parish priest to tell him why, so the impact of this action, even when it is taken, is diffuse.

If the laity are more influential where a church funding system is less empowering of the individual church member, then something other than the church financing system must logically be at work ...
... so firstly, where/how is this increased influence of the laity in Germany demonstrated?
... and secondly, if it is happening, what is the actual mechanism for it?