- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,491
- Reaction score
- 2,546
- Location
- Lafayette, Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You have provided not a shred of evidence Germany owns the property or that it is responsible for maintenance and I have linked the evidence the tax is not State mandated and that Germany does not own the church property.
At this point, you can either provide the evidence backing up your claim, admit you were wrong, or leave the thread.
I didn't say the US would collect taxes. I said since this is a church issue it could happen in the US that the church excommunicates members if they don't pay enough.
ahh.. ok.. well, i agree on that point.
my argument surrounded the state taking up tax revenue for the church... that is what i find distasteful and i'm happy it doesn't happen here.
I don't care if any church, anywhere in the world, boots folks for not paying..church business ain't none of my business.
In Germany the tax collection is done more like a business transaction versus a government action. The church pays Germany because the State has the best access to income tax records.
To be fair Napoleon, Furiounova is right. None of the information about German church taxes that I can find indicates that the reason is because the state owns the churches. As far as I can discern, the church tax is a very old custom from when local officials paid for church maintenance and salaries.
In my opinion, this is a tempest in a tea pot, it merely re-affirms what has existed in law for centuries. But anti-Catholics use any fodder they can find to fashion into a whip.
Why does anyone think the church should be obligated to perform sacramental rites for those who refuse to support the church? If you care about being in communion with the church, then you should care about supporting it. Jesus called blessed the poor woman who gave two pennies, all she had, to maintain the temple, because maintaining her church was so important to her. If some people in Germany see fit not to pay the tax, then I feel the church has no obligation to accept them in to communion.
Like a person who lapsed on their dues to the Atheist society demanding to get in to the annual banquet and complaining that they stopped sending the quarterly newsletter.
ok.. I still find it distasteful and i'm happy it doesn't happen here.
The episode of the woman giving her last two pennies was to highlight how the Temple took advantage of the poor through excessive taxation. Which is one reason why Jesus went postal over the money changers.
His entire ministry was a threat to the Temple and Rome because he taught forgiveness is free. God's love is free. That meant removing income from the Temple that was used as a conduit by Rome to collect the taxes.
The lesson was that the old woman's gift was worth more to God than the rich man's gift because she gave everything she had and the rich man gave only from his excess.
I caution you against reading current political and socio-economic issues into the word of God, or you will stumble.
The lesson was that the old woman's gift was worth more to God than the rich man's gift because she gave everything she had and the rich man gave only from his excess.
I caution you against reading current political and socio-economic issues into the word of God, or you will stumble.
And yet in America there is no church tax, and I doubt that Americans are any less christian europeans. The fundamental problem here has historically always been catholic greed. It's always been about money and power, not religion. If a poor person walks into a church in America needing some spiritual help, no one is going to charge him a door fee. I used to be a christian and I can definitely affirm that is the more christian thing to do.
The tax is a red herring. It doesn't matter if you are in the United States, Germany, or Timbuktu; public apostasy constitutes ispo facto excommunication. When you publicly renounce your Catholicism for any reason you are no longer consider Catholic by the Church and therefore cannot receive the sacraments.
The tax is a red herring. It doesn't matter if you are in the United States, Germany, or Timbuktu; public apostasy constitutes ispo facto excommunication. When you publicly renounce your Catholicism for any reason you are no longer consider Catholic by the Church and therefore cannot receive the sacraments.
I think Luke is clear here (Luke 21:1-4):
21 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God,[a] but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”
Latae sententiae excommunication, actually.
I am shocked that nobody is upset at the lack of religious freedom in Germany, that they would institute a government-enforced Church Tax and then dare to infringe on Catholic business when their high court decides that Catholics cannot be excommunicated for refusal to pay. Renunciation of the Catholicism brings excommunication with it automatically, and there is no difference the law of any mortal sovereign can make.
This new Church policy does not change anything. If renounce Catholicism to avoid a tax, then you are not entitled to Communion.
I am shocked that nobody is upset at the lack of religious freedom in Germany, that they would institute a government-enforced Church Tax and then dare to infringe on Catholic business when their high court decides that Catholics cannot be excommunicated for refusal to pay. Renunciation of the Catholicism brings excommunication with it automatically, and there is no difference the law of any mortal sovereign can make.
I'm on the fence about the tax. Many of the cathedrals are hundreds of years old and pose a public safety risk if their facades are not properly maintained. Don't want chunks of the building falling on tourists if you know what I mean and someone hast to pay for it. Why not the people who actually use the building?
I don't suppose I am in a position to judge German law, especially considering that they do not have the same respect for civil rights as we do in the USA. Regardless, with respect to Catholics, if you are renouncing the faith (even to avoid paying a tax) there is no other option that excommunication. This is basically the German government imposing a tax on being Catholic.
I'm on the fence about the tax. Many of the cathedrals are hundreds of years old and pose a public safety risk if their facades are not properly maintained. Don't want chunks of the building falling on tourists if you know what I mean and someone hast to pay for it. Why not the people who actually use the building?
The German govermenr ruled against the Church so no it isn't what you claim.
It is pretty clear there is an agenda here to ignore basic facts.
The German government cannot prevent a latae sententiae excommunication from taking effect. It is automatic upon renunciation.
You better tell that to the German high court that ruled Catholics are still members even if they refuse to pay the tax. Maybe if you learned the facts of the issue it would help guide more informed posts?
It doesn't matter what the court purports to do. The penalty of excommunication attaches to renunciation as a matter of canon law, which is a higher authority.
Okay. You obviously have not read the case I linked.
...and you still haven't proven, Napolean, your claim that the state of Germany owns the religious properties. Please provide such evidence if you have it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?