The German Government tax law is exactly what our US Constitution prohibits in our country; interferece of the state in church matters. A government should never have the right to tax a citizen just because they belong to a Church.  All blame should be placed on the German Government, not the Church.  Money, however, should never be a reason to deny God, publicly or privately, no matter the reason.  However, I do not believe the Church should deny members their sacraments. They should rather work at finding a way for their members to support their Church without paying the Government a tax that should not have been levied in the first place.

This is really atrocious. Not really all that surprising for Germanic peoples, but still absurd - what kind of racket is this? What business is it of the State that I belong to a Church? The “just grin and bear it” argument is kind of silly, because it circumvents the real problem. The problem is that the State is intervening in such a way as to cause in spiritual extortion, and this wicked state of affairs shall be judged harshly.  And for a Church in Germany that is rapidly losing members, this will SURELY attract more, won’t it!

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” - St. John Chrysostom

Indeed. St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.

“The incestuous relationship between church and state in Germany was authored by Hitler—and persists to this day.” read http://www.freedommag.org/english/spegerm/page18.htm

If someone is willing to deny their faith to save some money, their faith isn’t that important to them in the first place.

Jimmy, I am wondering how the German pastors know when a person has stopped paying the tax? For example, if a Catholic shows up and asks for marriage prep, does the pastor say, “Alright. All I need to see is your 2012 tax information to make sure you are registered as a Catholic.” How is this enforced at the practical level?

Jimmy,
thanks for this excellent commentary.
The Church will never be able to do anything right in the sight of the world regardless of the good motives of the bishops. When the Church starts getting salutary stories in the press, you know we are really in trouble!

“In particular, I’d be curious to know from those who think that it’s a bad thing for the state to have “enforced charity” for the Church if they also think it’s a bad thing for the state to conduct “enforced charity” for other causes—like healthcare, poverty relief, etc”

The Church is not a “cause” or social problem like healthcare, poverty, etc. It like the state (albeit to a lesser degree) is a provider of services like healthcare and services to alleviate conditions like poverty.

Also, in theory if not practice, a citizen of the state has the choice through elected representatives and the democratic process to not support healthcare or poverty relief; and they can do so without any effect on their citizenship. They can’t be denied public services like e.g. police protection for voting against a poverty relief measure.

When one gives money to the Church, the Church, as private non profit, for better or worse, determines how its to be spent. The only recourse a dissenting person has is talk to their pastor or refuse to give in the future because once the money is given to a charity it’s the charity’s to spend.

“To what extent do the arguments against enforcing charity with regard to the Church apply to other charitable causes?”

Again, Church doesn’t equal cause; Church equals institution.

“Just what should the state’s role be?”

The State’s role should be to protect the freedom of people to practice their faith, whatever it is, in whatever manner they deem fitting and to stay out of the financial, doctrinal, and internal affairs of religious institutions except in cases where said affairs interfere with other’s right to freely practice their faith, endanger the welfare of others, or otherwise interfere with other’s reasonable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“You have people denying the faith before Caesar so that they can have more take-home pay. That’s a problem.”

Agreed. But you have the Church demanding a person affirm his or her Catholic faith to Caesar so Caesar can give a percentage of his or her take home pay to the Church. That’s a problem too.

“the taxes you would pay will actually help the Church and help fulfill your duty of supporting the Church according to your means.”

It’s not the responsiblity of the State to help or hinder you from fulfilling your duty to the Church.

Taxes are coercive by nature. If you do not pay them you will be prosecuted by the IRS.

Taxes are part of the social contract: I pay taxes so the state can provide certain large scale services such as national defense, highway maintenance, medicare, public education, etc. that I as an individual would be hard pressed to provide myself.

We can wax romantic and patriotic about our duty to pay taxes (and be correct) but the cold hard truth is if you’d didn’t pay them you’d be in jail.

Donations to a Church are sullied when lumped with State taxes.
 

So the Church gets $6 billion a YEAR from these church taxes to compensate for land nationalized in the 19th century? Um, how much land did the German government take?! 500 million acres??

And even if you factor in the value of the land today and the opportunity costs associated with the lost use of the land by the Church over two centuries, I’d say the debt might have already been paid.

You also get into the sticky situation of recent immigrants paying for the sins of a German government they had absolutely nothing to do with and was active five generations before they were born. Why should they pay for the sins of not their own but other peoples great great great grandfathers?

After spending two years assigned in Germany while in the Army, I’ve witnessed first hand how over taxed they are.  But where is the Pastoral Care of the bishops?

I know times are hard and I’m sure they do as well - so whats the issue with them going to the state and asking for a relief on their followers?  They don’t need to cut it in half, but asking the state to reduce their income by reducing the tax burden would show that they are watching their flocks and they are concerned with their needs.

No, I’m not agreeing with the headline and calling them greedy.  But instead of using the Canon laws to give a perception of punishment (which the Canon Laws are not there to punish).  Educate what the Canon says and then offer 1/2% or a 1% reduction back to the people and show they are concerned for both the family financial being as well as the individual’s spiritual welfare.  Don’t forget there is a balance between the two - and we all know when someone is down in their financial being, it can become a barrier between them and God or between them and the Church.

With all that said, now I will comment that agree with the decree.  The same as when a Protestant comes to one of our Churchs and askes for the sacraments, there are only a few we can give.  When someone openly denies the Church, they fit in the same category as those “not in full communion” with us.

Mary Spielman and other commentators: It is the Church in Germany that levies this tax, not the state. It is just paid in conjunction with income tax, for the convenience of the Church, and the rate is income-dependent. This is normal practice in many European countries, Catholic and Protestant. Germany is a rich country, hence the total amount collected is high (enabling the Catholic Church in Germany is able to help poorer dioceses as well, e. g. those in Scandinavia). There is no reason for outrage. I wish people would refrain from commenting (sometimes in near-hysterical language) on situations like this taking place in foreign countries whose customs and conditions they are ignorant of.

It is interesting to see the comments here.Living in Germany I know a bit about this.I know someone who left the church.The person was told they COULD NOT receive the sacraments and a catholic burial.No mention was made of the “in danger of death” sentence by the priest.The tax was not introduced by Hitler as someone claimed.It was compensation for church property which was confiscated by the state during the secularization of Germany 1802-1804,as correctly stated by the article.The Bishops use the money for many good things like kindergartens where here in Bavaria we pay €90 a month per child to send to our local catholic kindergarten.But we also have in our small town alone 8 churches.Some which are used only once a year!We have a Bishop in Germany who seems to be building a palace for himself.It is no wonder that some ask where is the accountability for spending such sums of money on projects of worldly vanity.Also one may ask if it is really public what those who leave are doing!You go to the local town hall and fill in a form that you want to leave the church.This form is passed to the Parish.They interview the person then inform the Diocese.The person has not shouted it in the streets publicly he has left the church.No large advert in the local paper announcing this decision.I think the Bishops would be hard pressed to say this is a public announcement when your personal tax matters are private!When did a Bishop last publicly tell us how much tax they pay? 
The fact is most people who decided to leave the church in the past few years were not practicing Catholics.Because of the pedophile scandel they were alerted by the media to the fact they could leave the church officially and not pay the 8-9% tax(If they were earning enough).Many chose to do so.It should be also stated that the German Government do not do this for free.They charge a fee of 3% for collecting the tax.You might be pleased to know the person who left,rejoined the church due to the intercession of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos.

That’s my impression as well. I wrote a <a >blogpost on the topic as well</a>, and I read a lot of angry comments about the system, most of them are from Americans, who have no idea what the tax is, why the tax exists and how it works in everyday life.
I don’t mind it when people are opinionated and criticize things, as long as it’s constructive criticism. Since most church buildings in secularized countries like Germany, France, Belgium, etc. are state property just getting rid of the tax doesn’t solve the problem.
How is the church going to pay for maintenance to age old monuments, for everything they do if nobody donates money to the Church? The idea of tithing is very foreign to most European citizens. They expect everything the Church offers them to be free and in cases where there is no tax (like in The Netherlands) people hardly donate money to the Church, hence the Church is often forced to cut into evangelization projects and close buildings due to lack of funding.
If you think Church Tax is a bad thing and needs to go, what is your suggestion to compensate for it, given the current situation in Europe?

Jimmy: As a parish priest, I know all too well the expenses involved in running a parish. At the end of every month I sit down to face the task of trying to pay all the bills which seem to grow ever higher as revenues remain stable. It is a dilemma we are all facing. It is easy to understand the motivation behind this initiative. But I sincerely believe that the tactic of denying the sacraments is contradictory to the lessons of both scripture and the early Church.

Firstly, is not membership in the Church rooted in baptism? It’s certainly not rooted in ‘registration’ or tax revenues! The German Bishops are downplaying this essential reality of who we are as a Church. Yes, the majority of ‘Catholics’ today are not living out their baptismal obligations to practice their faith. Yet they are more than just ‘nominal Catholics’. They are baptized Catholics and as such entitled to the sacraments of the Church irrespective of how much they pay (or not) in support of the Church. The sacraments should NEVER IMHO be used as part of a carrot/stick strategy to procure funding for the Church.

Further, there is a particular irony that this is coming from the German Bishops Conference. They are the one group that continually puts forward the idea that we should extend full rights to the sacraments to re-married divorced Catholics! So, they want to offer the Eucharist to people who are objectively in a state of mortal sin while denying it to others whose sin is that they don’t financially support the Church. Am I the only one who sees an inherent contradiction in these two positions of the German Bishops?

Finally, this decision is both unscriptural as well as being in contradiction to our belief that the Church is a place FOR sinners. From the prodigal son through to the sinner who beat his breast at the back of the synagogue, Jesus taught us the charity and love should always trump how we spend our money when it comes to offering the sacraments of forgiveness and nourishment. They say that they will deny baptism to children who’s parents don’t pay the tax. Why are they punishing an innocent soul by denying it the salvific effect of being baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus? We teach (very properly) that a child conceived via rape or incest should not be denied life because of how they came to be. Is it right to deny the gift of eternal life to that child for reasons absolutely beyond their control? I don’t think so.

I believe that the German Bishops need to re-think their strategy and tactics lest they do far more damage than they seem to comprehend.

Fr. Tim Moyle, Diocese of Pembroke
St. Anne’s Parish
Mattawa, Ontario.
Canada.

I’ve seen the same kind of uninformed remarks in other threads from folk who’ve never visted, much less lived in Germany.Also the usual atheist comments a news item like this would draw.

Anna B: I understand the point you are making about cultural differences between Germany and North America. But do cultural differences trump the effect of one’s baptism? I think now. Do you agree?

Fr. Tim

Fr. Tim,

I think Anna B. has a valid point. I assume Canon Law in the US is the same as it is in Germany, where people who leave the Church, and thus are not in good standing with the Church anymore cannot receive Communion for example, no matter how baptized that person is. If you defect from the Church, that has consequences.

Madonna is a baptized Catholic, would you say she has access to the Sacraments, because of her baptism?

What if someone leaves the space blank?  Thomas More remained silent but you are saying he should have declared his views?

Today it is taxation, but what happens if they are penalized for being anti abortion or anti-gay by the same state?  Or if they withhold the funds from the church on that basis?  What if in every other venue and in very PUBLIC manners you declare yourself to be and act Catholic?  (And go to confession but leave the paper blank).  Or say I’m a remarried divorcee - can I sue the church for being denied something I’m paying taxes for?

The church is too often raped by Caesar, it is worse when it is consensual and hardly credible when the lady doth protest that Caesar is doing to much.  Do not persecutors start by merely asking to register?

Are tax returns or at least this part PUBLIC RECORD?  If not, it is not a public declaration.  Where is the website or who do I write to in order to get the identification in enough detail to know who is Catholic.  Germany forced google to remove images and other ‘private data’, but I should be able to type in any name and address and find out if they are Catholic?  It is not public if I cannot without consent or deceit obtain such records.  Busybody Bishops may have access but the 8th commandment says not everything true is for disclosure.

I agree with Father Tim.We are missionaries for Christ,our mission is to save souls.No one should be told they cannot go to confession because they do not pay a tax.With this tax in place we still have collections at every Sunday Mass and all funerals! Yes even Madonna who was baptised Catholic should be able to go to confession IF she was truly sorry for her sins and intended to change her lifestyle and follow the gospel.Would Jesus have told her to “Get Lost”?

Inge: I probably wouldn’t offer the sacraments to Madonna. But it wouldn’t be because she didn’t financially support the Church. It would be because of her lascivious lifestyle.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not the type of priest that thinks everyone should ‘come to the table’ irrespective of their state of grace. I just don’t believe that money should be the issue that separates ‘the sheep from the goats’!

Fr. Tim

Inge:  P.S. You’re absolutely correct that one who defects from the faith has no right to the sacraments. But ‘defect’ is is used as a religious concept: someone who renounces their faith. I don’t believe that taking one’s self off a tax role meets that standard. And even if it did, why deny them the sacrament of reconciliation? Even someone who renounces their Catholic faith is permitted to rejoin the communion if they go to confession. No where in the Code of Canon Law does it state that paying a tax is a requirement to be brought back into the Church. By denying all the sacraments (save in danger of death) to people who no longer pay the Church tax, the German Bishops are effectively: a) denying people the salvific effects of the sacraments; b) imposing an obligation upon German Catholics that does not exist in Canon Law.

Fr. Tim

Exactly. And if you read this article, it becomes clear that people don’t get denied any Sacraments because they don’t financially support the Church. A lot of German Catholics don’t pay an income tax and thus don’t pay Church Tax either. Only people who work and have income are taxed. People who aren’t taxed aren’t denied anything.
The matter here is that people publicly and formally renounce their Catholic faith. They defect.
More context: a lot of people didn’t know you could take this route, after the child abuse crisis MSM pointed this out to a lot of people and they also pointed out that you wouldn’t have to pay Church Tax if you did. So from the 35 or million Catholics, a little bit less than 200,000 went ahead and unregistered. The bishops now warn what the consequences are of renouncing your faith. These people are not excommunicated, but they cannot receive any Sacraments that require you to be in good standing with the Church. That has nothing to do with taxes or money.

Fr. Tim - “So, they want to offer the Eucharist to people who are objectively in a state of mortal sin while denying it to others whose sin is that they don’t financially support the Church.”
—
I don’t know anything about the Germans’ comments on divorced and remarried Catholics, but as Jimmy points out, denying one’s faith to the State is a mortal sin - whether the Church’s finances are hurt by this or not.
—
Let me say that again. To avoid the taxes, you must not just say “I don’t want to pay the taxes” but “I’m not Catholic”. This is what the law is. Is it the best law? I don’t really think so. Perhaps Germany should give the Churches their property back and cancel the tax altogether. But it doesn’t matter. You can’t say “I’m not Catholic” for any reason, no matter what, regardless of the consequences.

Fr. Tim. there is no ‘religious tax register’, your faith is registered with the civil authorities, your faith decided which church your tax goes to. If you don’t want to pay this tax, the only option you have is to be registered as having ‘no faith’. If you want to change from ‘Catholic’ to ‘No Faith’ the law requires you to formally defect. I.e. to LEAVE your religious community, just like Jimmy explains. You need to hand in paperwork from the Church that you defected, to proof you are not Catholic anymore and thus of ‘no faith’. See how that is a problem for receiving Sacraments?

Of course you can always go back, Confess and be reconciled, but that means you need to pay the Church Tax again.

So Germans renounce their faith (in writing) to avoid paying a government tax.(which benefits their church). It doesn’t sound like the faith of one who would do this is very important and why would they expect sacraments if they renounce their faith? What if Peter had renounced his faith to avoid being crucified?

I don’t think the real issue has been addressed. It’s obvious that each catholic has the moral duty to financially support the Church according to the local law.

However, that’s not the point. The catholic church in Germany is uttermost liberal. The average german catholic supports aborption, gay marriage, divorce, etc. and I never heard their bishops to say that sacraments are to be given only to catholics who are loyal to church teaching.

It’s a weird zeal that they come up with now.

Some here are actually outraged by the German State collecting taxes for the churches. “It is against our COnstitution,etc.” However did these people read why this is the case in Germany? NO. Mr. Akin writes; “Apparently, in the 19th century, Germany decided that it wanted to nationalize (i.e., take over, claim for its own) a bunch of church property. To compensate the Church for this, the German state agreed to collect a “church tax” on behalf of the members of a given religious community.” This is a mutually agreed upon process. Therefore, there is a cogent reason for what Germany is doing. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time to change the law.

It helps to read a post well before commenting.

Inge: I did read the article… twice in fact. But I still don’t think you get my point. If someone converts to become a Jehovah’s Witness and writes to have their name stripped from the baptismal register, we don’t oblige. Why? Because once you’re baptized you are Catholic. Period. You may end up being a fallen away Catholic but you are still baptized as a member of the communion.

How can a civil act of registration nullify this? It cannot! Remember, apostates were allowed back into the Church if they renounced Christ himself and permitted to come to the sacraments. But somehow what they could do, modern day Germans who decline to pay a payroll tax cannot? It doesn’t make sense to me. It’s not as if they stood on the Church steps and nailed a renouncement of the faith publicly.

Last point: IMHO, money has NO PLACE in the determining the calculus as to who is or is not a Catholic. For me, this is a square that cannot have its edges worn down to be a circle. Is the only form of support that the German Church recognizes financial in nature? You say that all they have to do is return and confess to be brought back into full communion. So what if someone confessed that they had civilly renounced their faith - assuming that this sacrament would even be made available to them - but didn’t change their civic registration to be counted as a Catholic? Should such a person be received back into the Church? I would say yes. I guess you would say no. Remember, no one knows when God is going to call for their soul to be judged. It is very likely that untold numbers could be forced to die in a state of sin since a priest might not have time to get to them to effect a reconciliation and give them their last rites.

No, I am sorry but I cannot see this as being a valid tactic on the part of the German Bishops.

Thank you very much for this thoughtful exchange. You have given me much to ponder.

Fr. Tim

I’m still trying to get my head around it. The state takes church land and resources and then says to compensate you we will tax your members while keeping 3% of an 8% tax.

I guess those Catholics in England should be glad Henry VIII just took everything without making Catholics pay for it the last 500 years.

@Fr. Tim:  [“untold numbers could be forced to die in a state of sin since a priest might not have time to get to them to effect a reconciliation and give them their last rites.”]  That’s legalism.  Salvation is not conditional upon a man receiving these two Sacraments at the hour of death.

When something is mandated like a tax how is the virtue of generosity and giving developed? If the German bishops like the convenience of having the government collect the money through payroll deduction or whatever, let the people decide how much they would like to have deducted, example 8% or 3% or 12%. That way it is truly giving because it is freely given.

Of course they could set up a kiosk at the church door and sell entrance tickets like a movie theater.

Fr. Tim -“If someone converts to become a Jehovah’s Witness and writes to have their name stripped from the baptismal register, we don’t oblige. Why? Because once you’re baptized you are Catholic. Period. You may end up being a fallen away Catholic but you are still baptized as a member of the communion.”
-
True. No one is saying these people aren’t Catholic or stripping their names from the Baptismal Register.
—
“How can a civil act of registration nullify this? It cannot!”
-
True. No one is saying that it does.
—
“It cannot! Remember, apostates were allowed back into the Church if they renounced Christ himself and permitted to come to the sacraments. But somehow what they could do, modern day Germans who decline to pay a payroll tax cannot?”
-
You are still ignoring what is actually happening. These people are still Catholic. No one is denying this. They can come back to the sacraments. No one is saying they can’t.
-
And indeed they can just confess what they did and come back - SO LONG AS THEY STOP DOING IT - if they go tell the State that they actually are Catholic. I mean, if a person went to confession and said “I’ve been living carnally with my girlfriend, I have no intention of stopping because it’s very convenient and fun,” would it be a good thing to absolve them and tell them that they’re members of the Church in good standing capable of receiving the Sacraments? To do so would be a lie.
-
These people are not being denied the Sacraments because they checked a box saying they don’t want to give money to the Church. That option DOES NOT EXIST. What they do is tell the government that they are no longer Catholic. This is always a grave sin. No matter what. Being in such a state and persisting in such a state of claiming not to be Catholic is bad. It could be handled at confession - but only if the the person exits this state.
-
Again, the fact that these people do so to avoid a tax is irrelevant. The people who denied Christ to avoid being fed to lions were also in a state of grave sin, and I think we can all agree that being fed to lions is at least a little bit worse than a tax.

Casting Crowns: It may be legalism but it is also true. The last rites do indeed reconcile even the most grievous sinner with the saving grace won for us by the cross. They are still responsible for the temporal effects of their sin - and could find themselves stuck in a cold corner of purgatory for a long, long time - but the sacrament reunites them with redemption.

So perhaps it’s not legalism on my part, but rather an indication that you should spend some time reflecting upon our sacramental theology. I am in no way denying or diminishing the importance of how we live our life but you may be doing that to the grace inherent in the sacraments.

I think of it like this: As air, water, and food are essentials for life and should never be withheld no matter the circumstances, the sacraments are essential for our spiritual life. To deny them to Catholics is to snuff out any ember or spark of faith and grace that still glows within their souls. It is crushing the ‘broken reed’. It is not what we are called to do.

There MUST be other ways to address this fiscal issue in Germany without resorting to using the sacraments as a weapon. To do so is as antithetical to their nature as denying the essentials of life should be antithetical to moral medical practice. How about transparency? Do German Catholics know how their ‘donation’/taxes are spent? Have the consequences of their precarious financial situation been explained across the land? Have they started to put together a collections/donations/fund-raising effort to address their needs? Or are they just depending upon revenues that the State collects on their behalf instead of trying to raise the needed funds themselves? The German Bishops Conference own a large multi-media corporation. It made the news last year when it was found to be the world’s largest purveyor of texts for witches and sorcerers. They also got into hot-water when they were found to be the owner of the countries largest dial-a-sex phone lines. (They owned the 900 lines but leased them to other companies without checking what they were going to do with them. Eventually they sold the lines to escape their situation.) Clearly they have means beyond just the revenues from average German Catholic tax-payers. Could the revenues from these operations be put to use to keep Church properties in good order?

Clearly, there has to be a better way.

Fr. Tim

The recent decree of the German bishops almost amounts not only to Simony but also to hypocrisy. A current German bishop (Franz Peter Tebartz van Elst of Limburg diocese) traveled 1st class with his Vicar General for a mission trip to India in January 2012. This was published by the Germany magazine on 20th August (Der Spiegel, 20.Aug.2012.See link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-bishop-of-limburg-triggers-uproar-with-luxurious-lifestyle-a-851707.html). The people have become angry with this bishop’s and other German bishops’ lifestyle. Many have threatened to quit the ‘formal’ church and paying taxes. Now this is the precedence for the German Bishops’ conference decree on 20 Sept. However, it is a sad situation with the bishops everywhere in the world, including Africa, not only in Germany. There are so many bishops who live in luxury and fly in luxury. But this man’s has had news. Unless the leaders, the so-called shepherds, begin to live like Jesus, “without place to lay down his head,” it sad not just for the people and the church, but also for the salvation of the bishops themselves (read the quote of St.Chrysostom: the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops). It is the simple and humble who will save the church and receive salvation. Jesus preached Good News to the poor (Luke 4, 18). Let the bishops do it by their lives. God help us!!

@Fr. Tim:  The Sacraments are fine, however, ensuring I receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Extreme Unction before death is rather risky and not something you should promote as a “fail safe” mechanism.  You know well that most Catholics upon death do not receive these Sacraments.  My father died in a nursing home at 2am and my mother in ICU at the hospital.  There was no time to call a priest to administer both Sacraments.  The Lord will apply the blood of Christ at His will and is not bound by church requirements. Both of my parents were saved in spite of not having a priest present in the ICU or at 2am at the nursing home.

Jacob: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Perhaps we have a different interpretation of what’s happening. I see it this way.

Strip away all the cultural and national quirks that the Germans have in their system. Forget the legalese about declaring one’s self as being Catholic or not with the State. Look at it in its simplest structure and this is what I see: The German Church is telling German Catholics if they don’t pay towards the support of the Church, they will be denied the sacraments. It’s as simple as that.

They are using the threat of effectively refusing the sacraments to Catholics who do not pay the Church tax because they are equating the bureaucratic process of choosing not to pay be render such people, apostates. That is what someone who renounces the faith is called.  Strip the State out the equation and it would be as if Catholic Bishops barred the sacraments to anyone who did not tithe a certain percentage of their income to the Church. It would never happen because it is wrong and contrary to what Christ and the apostles taught.

I ask you further: Should a state even possess the power to force its citizens to declare their religious affiliation? It was wrong when the Soviet regimes tried to do it during their 50 year reign of terror. Is it acceptable in Germany now just because there the Church is benefiting and not being persecuted there? See this obligation for what it is. It is nothing more than a bureaucratic method of determining who pays what to which Church. Such a state process has NO FORCE WHATSOEVER when it comes to establishing who can come to the sacraments and who is to be denied. Effectively the German Church is ceding this authority to the Church by involving them in collecting funds from tax-paying Catholics, placing them in a state of moral hazard. I cannot see how such a process that puts baptized Catholic in such a situation is right, moral, or proper.

I am sorry that I don’t see it the way that most other seem to here. As a pastor I am far more concerned with both keeping safe the souls entrusted to my care safe and bringing even more home to the Church than I am about trying to come up with ways of ejecting folks from Peter’s barque. I do not deny or whitewash any Church teaching. I address the full panoply of life and moral issues in my preaching, teaching, and prayer. From the dangers of the contraceptive mentality and the creeping menace of the culture of death to the essential task of Catholics to (and I quote here from my old deceased friend, Fr. R.J. Neuhaus) “embrace the wonderful challenge of orthodoxy”. My parishioners regular hear it all. I am sad because our disagreement here demonstrates to me that, while ‘truth’ is ably presented and defended here, ‘charity’ seems to be taking a beating. I wish this were different too.

Respectfully and prayerfully yours,

Fr. Tim

Many thoughtful comments.  I wonder how difficult for the church to grow, as a new person into the faith, if the first official act would have to be to register with the government.  I wonder if a Grace (pun intended) period would be in effect during RCIA?

So different than it is here in the USA.  I can’t imagine people paying the government to be in a religion.

If a person cares so little about the Faith that they are willing to declare themselves not Catholics just to escape giving money to the Church,then their Faith is probably already be dead—probably those who warm the pews once in a while, perhaps for family or social reasons or some sentimental thing, but don’t really hold the Faith or practice it. Those of us who love the Church would never deny we were Catholic, and certainly not to escape a tax that benefits Holy Mother Church. Even if we thought the tax was offensive. Which it may be.

On the other hand, 8% of their taxes is probably less than a traditional 10% tithe, so what are they complaining about?

Besides harming their own souls, those Catholics (or CINOs) are abusing the Church, in a way. They’re saying, When I can save some money I will deny I am Catholic. But when I want to come to Church, the Church must accept me and satisfy my needs. That is not right.

I’m not saying I think the tax is necessarily right, but denying you’re Catholic to escape it is wrong.

Casting Crown: Absolutely correct. I am certain that the virtues and graces of your parents lives rooted them deeply into the redemptive power of the cross. Your participating here, defending the faith (quite ably I might add) with respect, faith, and zeal stands in tribute to their holiness.

But what about the Catholic who’s only hope for the salvation is that free gift of grace offered by the sacraments, even if it’s one of the few times that they ever availed themselves of their grace? The article states: “Clearly, someone withdrawing from the church can no longer take advantage of the system like someone who remains a member,” he said at a Sept. 24 news conference….” What system is there that means anything within the communion other than the sacramental system?

I believe that the Bishops (and Jimmy) are conflating bureaucratic process with an act of apostasy. This is an error, pastorally speaking. All of us who are graced with the sacrament of Holy Orders must go the extra mile to avoid putting the faithful in such a dire position. We must fight to keep people attached to the Church, guarded with grace, prayer, a virtuous example and faithful teaching… and the sacraments.

Fr. Tim

Fr. Tim - I do not like the German system. I can see how it came about, since the German government decided to take Church property, but I dislike it.
-
However, the system is there. Perhaps it should be changed. I think it should be. But unless and until it is, the German Bishops have to deal with things as they are. Whether or not the German state should be able to force people to declare their religion is debatable (again, I would agree with you that they should not). But what is not debatable is that, if the German state does choose to do so, that a Catholic cannot say he is anything but Catholic.
-
I think where we differ in that while you see the declaration of faith to the state as something extra that can be stripped away to deal with the real issue (Church getting money out of this mess), I see the fact that such taxes are linked to such a declaration of faith as the secondary issue. I cannot accept that formally declaring oneself not to be a Catholic to anyone, for any reason, is anything but a terrible sin.
-
So as I see it, the German Bishops have decided that people who go around saying they aren’t Catholic cannot be given the sacraments reserved for Catholics (except in danger of death). As a side issue, people who do so avoid having to pay a tax to the Church. I don’t like the side issue and think it should be resolved, but I think it pales in comparison to the primary issue - namely a person formally declaring to anyone for any reason that he is not Catholic.
-
Again, I don’t like the situation. I think the Church tax - a result of a nationalization of property that shouldn’t have happened - should not exist. But it can be thought of as the government using money it legitimately collects to compensate the Church for property it took (although in this case, you would think that the tax does not depend on a person’s faith and the amount given to various religions should depend only on what was taken from them - this would be much better I think). The tax is the only reason why such nationalization cannot (and even then only barely) be called out and out theft. Again, not a good situation.
-
Further, I agree with you that the Church tax gives incentive to people to deny their faith publicly, and that this is bad. This should not be the case.
-
But I do not think that the presence of incentive, nor the unfairness of the situation that provides it, nor even the fact that the Church could lose the income (which again is a sort of compensation for confiscated property) in order to remove the incentive, makes it any less of a grave sin to publicly denounce the faith.
-
So ideally (I think) the Church tax would be abolished, the churches would have their property restored, the incentive to sin in that particular way would be gone, and people wouldn’t denounce their faith for financial gain. But unless and until that happens, the Church has to address the fact that people are denouncing their faith for financial gain. And while this should be done charitably, I do not think that presenting it as any less bad than it is is charitable, but rather misleading.

This whole brouhaha is a result of the unique German arrangement in which the actual membership in a church is expressed through taxation. This creates an impression that “it is all about money”. No, it isn’t. It is about being a faithful member of a church. If you don’t pay, you are out and you can’t expect to receive the sacraments, etc. Money is only an outward sign of orthodoxy.

One issue that isn’t being address here is the ex-Catholic seeking to come home and is told by his bishop (in effect): “You can return to the sacraments, but since you’ve been away for 10 years, you owe us $10,000 in back contributions” (10 years x $1000). Not even a saint has that much money. Forget it. For the poor, aged, disabled and unemployed, and in a fiscal crisis like Greece, no one gives what they don’t have. Forbidding access to the sacraments is *just plain wrong* and anti-Christlike. It only causes the exodus of Catholics into Martin Luther’s church. If they want to decimate Catholicism in Germany, they’ve gone a long way towards that goal.

@That Hat Lady,

And where did you get this ridiculous idea?

Here’s a thought: Many here are equating the ‘I am not Catholic’ statement that is required to not pay this tax with a renouncement of their faith. Lines of scripture such as ‘If you deny me before men…’ etc. are here being used to paint a picture of these Germans as modern day apostates, who deserve to be denied the sacraments.

But, (and this is only a suggestion) are people not conflating membership in our RC Church with faith in Jesus? After all, these recalcitrant tax-payers are not saying they don’t believe in Christ. They are stating that they no longer wish to financially support the Church. Is this the same thing as saying that they are denying Christ? Is Christ only present within the walls of the institution known as the RC Church? Are ‘Christ’ and ‘Church’ equivalent terms? Christ is within the Church but is the Church Christ?

Just a thought to ponder.

Fr. Tim

“But, (and this is only a suggestion) are people not conflating membership in our RC Church with faith in Jesus? After all, these recalcitrant tax-payers are not saying they don’t believe in Christ.”

Then what’s the problem?  If they think they can find Christ after renouncing the Church, what’s the problem with telling them not to let the door hit them on the way out of the Church? 

“Is Christ only present within the walls of the institution known as the RC Church?”

If the people you are doing the renunciation thought this was a valid question, they would not be complaining about their renunciation being treated as schism.

“They are stating that they no longer wish to financially support the Church.”
-
This is not WHAT they are saying, this is WHY they are saying something which, presumably, they don’t believe to be true. But I ask again: if this were ok, then why was it bad to tell the Romans you weren’t Christian and make a largely symbolic offering to the state gods to avoid being fed to lions while actually believing that these state gods did not exist and that Christianity was true? Being fed to lions is at least as bad as paying higher taxes.
-
Further, it’s no good to argue that they are denying the Church and not Christ. Surely denying the first is not as bad as denying the second, but it is certainly enough to preclude giving out the sacraments - otherwise we would stop annoying protestants everywhere (who truly and sincerely believe in Christ) by refusing to share communion.
-
Again, no one is saying that these people have sinned irredeemably (and I suppose enough ignorance could keep it from being sin at all, though it’d have to be a lot I think), only that they are in an objectively bad position that must be rectified. Once it is made known to them that this objectively bad situation is in fact gravely bad, persisting in it would be mortal sin. Perhaps it’s not the same as completely denying Christ, but denying Christ’s bride is necessarily a very bad thing.

Addendum: not to mention the “he who hears you hears Me” thing. In a since, denying the Church Christ founded is denying Christ - not only because of the nature of Church, but also because you are saying that one of the teachings of Christ (that the Church is the Church) is false.

As Jacob S says, people are denying the church for money, but the Bishops are denying its people for monetary reasons. A large percentage of those who unregister may do so because they find the heart of the church is empty and are genuinely quitting.
It sounds like in spite of the defections that the German Church is in good financial shape.
Why don’t the Bishops exhort their congregations about the need for money and take up extra collections but say to those who who unregistered “we love you brother, come back, we will carry you who do not pay, may God release you from your ingratitude and open your heart. We will freely give all that we have for you.”
No wonder Christianity in Europe is dying. Where is the evangelism?

“A large percentage of those who unregister may do so because they find the heart of the church is empty and are genuinely quitting.”

Then what’s the problem?  They won’t want the sacraments.

Mary the problem is the Bishops are showing that the Church’s heart really is cold instead of warm and loving.

Jacob: Is stating that one is not a Catholic the same this as denying Jesus? Jesus subsists within the Catholic Church but is not limited to it. So if one says that are not ‘Catholic’, is that the same thing as saying they are not Christian?

If you answer in the affirmative, then your points are 100% valid and I am wrong. If however the answer is no, then these Germans are not apostates. They’re cheapskates! That is not a mortal sin is it?

Fr. Tim

Ada: Wonderfully put. You said better with a few words what I’ve been using too many to express. Thank you.

Fr. Tim

It’s more than just that they’re being cheapskates.

Why should the Church treat them like Catholics, when they are declaring they are not Catholics?

Our sacraments are not available to any and all comers. They are for Catholics - you have to be committed to the Faith to receive them, you can’t just walk in off the street (though you are welcome to come to Mass of course). We don’t bury Presbyterians, or teach CCD to Baptists (unless they are coming into the Church). You have to be in the state of grace to receive Communion. And so on.

These deniers may be some kind of non-Catholic Christian, but if a person says he is not a Catholic, then he is not a Catholic. He may have been baptized Catholic, but that is not the same thing as being a practicing Catholic.

If someone leaves the Church—let’s say he becomes a Baptist or Lutheran, or even an agnostic or atheist—if he comes back, he must go to confession and come back into the state of grace before receiving the sacraments. If he was never Catholic, he must commit first. It’s not just a free for all, even for those baptized as Catholics.

So, if you declare yourself not a Catholic, why should you expect to be treated like one just because you walk into the church building?

All that being said,I personally think this tax is a bad idea - and things like this show why!!

@Mouse:  I suggest your attitude is off base.  The Baptist or Evangelical who enters a Catholic church—is he/she not also in the Body of Christ?  Is Christ not also present at their worship services or is Christ only for Catholics?  One is not saved by church membership or denominationalism.  One is saved by the shed blood of Christ at Calvary.  You have duty to accept that brother or sister as a member of the body.  The apostles once got high handed by telling Jesus “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, ***because he was not one of us.”***  “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”  Mouse, I find your attitude quite prevalent in many Christian churches and even moreso in the Catholic church.  Many are more committed to their institutional church than they are to Christ being first.

Ada - While I agree that this is an impression (cold and unloving) of the action by the bishops that can be easily drawn, (and my git reaction to the first time I saw a news piece on it before I kicked myself and remembered that news sources about Catholic things often miss stuff), I think it is important to ask what exactly the alternatives are.
-
Option 1: Do what the bishops did. Risks being presented as greedy and uncaring but, as has been argued, really just screams “don’t declare apostasy unless you really really mean it (and ideally never really really mean it).” That is, dealing with a real problem.
-
Option 2: Don’t do anything. This could give the impression that formally declaring not to be Catholic is ok. This would be very bad because doing this is definitely not.
-
Option 3: Come up with some sort of legal way to exempt citizens from the Church tax that does not require them to declare that they aren’t members of the Church, and then encourage those who have so declared to re-declare membership in the Church but, if they must, to take this new legal way. (And then deny sacraments to those who declare not to be members with absolutely no hint that it is motivated by money.)
-
Option 3 would be, I think, ideal from a purely pastoral perspective. But we have to remember that the Church tax in Germany is there for a reason (maybe not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless). I don’t even know if there’s a legal process by which the Church can exempt any of its members. That reason is, so far as I understand, to compensate the various churches for property that the government took. So simply waiving the tax would be waiving a real debt, and cause real harm to the Churches finances. If the Church were willing and able to eat this harm, that’d be nice. But we can’t say that it must.
-
And irrespective of whether or not it does, it still must make it clear that formally claiming not to be a Catholic is not acceptable.

-Casting Crowns:
The Baptist or Evangelical may very well be a member of the body of Christ, but not as fully as the Catholic, and he is not able to receive (in ordinary circumstances) Catholic sacraments.
-
Likewise, Christ may very well be present in their services to some degree, but not in the same way He is present in the Eucharist, and their services do not compare to the Mass.
-
So if you’re saying we ought to treat the Catholic who publicly denounces his faith (so long as he persists in that state) the same way, as far as the sacraments go, as we treat protestants, you are actually not far from disagreement from the bishops. If anything, the bishops are being more generous than you.

I see most of you tar everyone who leaves with the same brush.Do you know the reasons why some leave?True story-Someone I know left the Catholic church.They went to the town hall and signed the forms.Tat person still believed in God.The person was suffering internally due to a very big fall out with a parish priest.It got so bad for the person they felt they were being victimized and during a period of extreme depression the person could cope no more and left the church.They didn’t want to,it was a cry for help.But then the person was told no sacraments,no catholic burial by the priest who she didn’t get on with.No mention of in case of death being mentioned to the person.I asked the person to think again and prayed to Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos to intercede for them.Within a week the person had been to confession,however that person was still not counted as a member of the church.It took another priest over 500 kilometres away who showed mercy and compassion to bring the person formally back into the church.It took over 2 months to do that.Now for the twist for all those on about the tax.the person didn’t earn enough to pay the church tax so that was not the reason the person left.Now was this a mortal sin given the mental state of the person concerned?All I can say is thank God He will judge me as with some on this thread I wouldn’t have a chance as its all just so black and white.God sees within our hearts and knows everything.We do not!

I don’t think anyone fully committed to the Catholic Church and in love with Christ would declare themselves not a Catholic to save some money.

The ones who would are the CINOs, the lukewarm that might attend at Christmas or just want a family wedding or a funeral in the church. The issue is their lukewarmness and indifference. There are plenty of these in the American Church. This is an evangelical problem not a money problem.

I don’t know what the solution is but to shut the door in their face is to lose them and maybe their children (literally) forever. My flinty heart says “good riddance”, while my Savior says “feed my sheep”.

Myke-
You misunderstand. I do not think it’s ever a good idea to leave the Church because that is where the fullness of faith lies, but I understand that strong emotional experiences like the one you cite may drive a person to do so. Such conditions may lessen culpability for the act (which is still objectively wrong).
-
But even if someone was driven away from the Church by emotional abuse, if he claims to no longer be Catholic, then he cannot avail himself (in ordinary circumstances) of the sacraments until such time as he and the Church are reconciled. This is what leaving the Church means. You cannot say “I want to not be Catholic and be Catholic” at the same time.
-
I’m glad your friend reconciled. I do not (can not) know if the person in your case committed mortal sin - grave matter was surely present, full knowledge was and full consent of will may or may not have been. I am not saying, will not say, and could not ever say that I know that your friend, had they died during the separation, would have been damned.
-
But sin or no sin, leaving the Church for any reason is objectively very, very bad and cannot be ignored. The problem in your friend’s case was not that they were told they could not receive the sacraments is they left, but that they were driven to leave in the first place. Thank God there was the understanding priest to help heal the wound.
-
-
This was not the case most of us were discussing however. We were discussing the case where a person declares that they are not Catholic purely for monetary gain. While lack of full consent of will and full knowledge could still prevent this from being mortally sinful in any particular case, if those two things are present then it is an extremely huge deal (and if they aren’t, then it’s a very big deal). And the solution is not to carry on as if nothing happened.

@Ada:  “the problem is the Bishops are showing that the Church’s heart really is cold instead of warm and loving.”

If that’s your definition of cold, then the Church is merely emulating Jesus, who said lots of cold, cold, cold things from demanding that people cut off their hands if they lead them into sin to declaring that if anyone renounced Him, He will renounce them.

@Ada:  “I don’t know what the solution is but to shut the door in their face is to lose them and maybe their children (literally) forever.”

Perhaps.  However, to condone their sin is also to perhaps lose them literally forever.  When Jesus plainly declares that those who renounce Him before the world can also expect Him to renounce them before His Father, it is plain duty to warn them of the fact.

“Just what should the state’s role be?”

To keep the peace, deterring and occasionally repelling invasion by foreign states, as well as deterring and punishing crimes by residents against one another. Keeping the roads in good repair is also generally a good policy, but it is a role for the state only by historical accident, rather than as a matter of morality.

I don’t know what percentage of the “church tax” the German government steals for its own purposes. I do know that rejecting it has more of the aroma of denying Caesar before Christ than of denying Christ before Caesar. And I do know that, were I to live in Germany, paying a “church tax” would _not_ be sufficient to meet my duty to support the Church within my means. It would merely diminish those means.

We support the Church because we love God. We pay taxes because if we don’t pay them, men with guns will drag us from our homes and families and lock us in prison to be gang-raped. I suppose technically they’re similar in that in both cases money moves from ourselves to others, but morally they have nothing whatsoever in common.

Money for sacraments? Isn’t that how the Reformation got started? It certainly didn’t start here: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. Freely have you received, freely give.” Mt 10, Douay. Can the German Bishops do any of the above? If not, let them support themselves making tents or something. There’s scriptural precedent for that, anyway.
Anyway, the “controversy” is a tempest in a teapot. As the German courts have ruled, an organization is free to set its own rules within the limits of a country’s civil rights.

Myke thanks for sharing the story about your friend. I think people leave the church for many reasons probably only a smallest fraction for miserliness. All are lost sheep that Jesus loves.

@Jacob S:  [“Christ may very well be present in their services to some degree, but not in the same way He is present in the Eucharist, and their services do not compare to the Mass.”}  “But not in the same way”  ??  Is Christ only 40% present?  60%?  or what %?  Sometimes your doctrine does not hold true with the gospel.  “When two or more are gathered in my name, I am with you.”  Jesus never placed conditions on “I am with you.”

@Casting Crowns – What upset you? I didn’t say anything about who is or is not in the Body of Christ or about non-Catholic worship! 

My opinion would be the same if it were Baptists who denied being Baptists, and then expected their Baptist pastor to treat them like Baptists in good standing. Or if someone renounced their American citizenship, then expected to receive all the same benefits of US citizenship. Doesn’t make sense and isn’t right.

Now, in fact I am a committed Catholic. And at the same time, I am glad to know anyone who sincerely loves Jesus Christ, and I long for the day when the divisions between Christians cease.

Still, that reunion does need to be founded on shared belief. We can’t just ignore serious deviations from the truth (as best we understand it) or of moral practice, for the sake of all “just coming together.” St Paul and the other Apostles didn’t ignore such things, and neither can we..in fact, they reacted strongly to them, even to the point of excluding people from fellowship (and reconciling them when they repented).

The unity we are meant to have is unity in the truth—love, yes! but truth too. In the meantime, I think we can do some things together, but not all…as we pray and work sincerely for the reunion of all Christians.

We all want Christ to be first. No one thinks he’s saved by denominationalism. We all know we are saved by Jesus Christ. The issue is some folks think the boundaries should be looser than others think they should be, and everyone believes their view is reflected in the New Testament! So, there is ecumenical work to do.

By the way, when I said “We don’t bury Presbyterians or teach CCD to Baptists.” I wasn’t insulting Presbyterians or Baptists, or suggesting they aren’t Christians. I was just pointing out a fact, that the Catholic Church offers sacraments and catechism to Catholics, or those who wish to become Catholics. And the same is true for the Protestant denominations and even for the non-denominational evangelicals. In terms of church services and studies, they primarily serve those who are in fellowship with them, or want to be.

For the Catholic view on how other Christians relate to us/the Catholic Church, you can check out the Catechism or documents of the Second Vatican Council, if you haven’t already.

Peace in our Lord!

@Myke - But here we’re not talking about people who have been harmed by members of the Church, which is always a tragedy. We’re just talking about people who deny the name Catholic but still want Catholic sacraments. Those folks need to decide which it is -  it’s not right to try to have it both ways.

I wonder if this wouldn’t be the best approach to the tax-motivated deniers: a personal letter from the pastor expressing sorrow that it appears they wish to leave the Church, offering to talk with them as to the issue and invite them to remain members, and also noting the impact on receiving sacraments. A person who doesn’t care about his Church membership will probably not respond, but a person who does care can be brought to see that his action is inappropriate, which he or she may not have realized.

Your comment reminds us that these situations could be an opportunity to invite people back who may have any number of reasons behind their willingness to deny their Catholicity.

Shutting up now, because I’ve been hogging the combox!

I think the case should be seen from the Church’s point of view. If the Church notices that the tax policy could get people away from her, it is necessary to abandon such policy. It is the salvation of the souls that matters, anyway.

I think there is another side issue. The compulsary church tax does not truly reflect what a tithe is. At the moment I choose to do voluntary work for the church as my tithe. Because of this I cannot afford to give another 10%. However I do put a bit extra on the plate. Also it limits our spiritual giving to the parishes and dioceses. What if we are spiritually nourished by other orders or religious outside the parish system. Why can we not choose to support these communities rather than the parishes?

Jimmy you’re being disingenuous when you write:

“There are apparently around 25 million Catholics in Germany, and in recent years only about 150,000 per year have been telling the state that they are no longer Catholics. That amounts to 0.6% of the Catholic population per year. If the Church’s policy were to stop that hemorrhaging completely, it would address only a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of the Church’s funds.”

Actually, at least 100,000 people have deregistered from the German Church every year since 1990. Over 22 years that’s a net loss of at least 2,200,000 people paying the so called “Church tax” for the Catholic Church.

If these people formed their own diocese they’d be the largest in Germany (larger than the current largest: the archdiocese of Cologne with 2.1 million)

This has cost the German Church tens of millions in Euros since 1990. This is a HUGE financial issue for the German Church.

This ultimatum is clearly an attempt to staunch the outflow of registered Catholics by denying them sacraments.

The German Bishops conference is (like in most other nations) a mess. Solidarity with the Pope has been largely abandoned by the Bishops.

I don’t see the German bishops objecting to the government that this old and scandalous Church tax system needs to be done away with, as it should. On the contrary the Bishops seem quite content with the state collecting more funds for them.

I believe that this recent action by the Bishops will damage Church membership as Europeans steadily abandon the faith. It will, in my opinion, result in fewer monies being collected. So, yes, they are making a greedy move and the MSM are, as usual, having a field day.

“This ultimatum is clearly an attempt to staunch the outflow of registered Catholics by denying them sacraments.”

Well, if they deny the faith, denying them the sacraments would merely be taking them at their word.

It’s doesn’t matter what you say, it’s all about the money,” is the way a suspicious person would look at the subject.

Not necessarily just about the amount of money, but also about how it is spent.  As others have pointed out, it is an issue of accountability.  If you are taxed directly with essentially no discretion of where or how the funds are used, it can lead to support of very questionable practices (imagine a San Fran diocese with all sorts of “pastoral outreach” programs to its LGBT constituents).  Heck, our own CCHD has had very suspect ties.  If you are asked to contribute, you make the decision to support this, but not that.  If you are simply taxed, you have no way to enforce accountability at even a minimal level.

And in a sense, in the US we do have some Church/State tax entanglement - it is called charitable deductions.  Perhaps a way for Germans to reach a compromise is for the citizen to receive a credit for verified donations to the Church or specific Church program.

So let me get this straight -  a German Catholic, Protestant or Jew contributes to the building up of his parish, denomination, synagogue, what have you.  The German government then wants some of this property and takes it from the Church etc.  In exchange, the same people who contributed to building up what was taken now have the privilege of paying for it to be taken?!!?  Don’t let Obama in on this scam.

This is from the linked CNS article:
“church baptisms and weddings continue to decline. Church statistics show that about 13 percent of Catholics attend Mass weekly, compared with 22 percent in 1989.”

How can the Bishops believe that all those resigning are still practicing Catholics just trying to save money? This is the church dying, or at best shrinking to true believers. Unbelievers are saying “Why should we pay?”

From the article:
” The German bishops, therefore, need to offer a counter-narrative to the one that the media will inevitably use.

And they have . . .

The Counter-Narrative

As a Catholic News Service story suggests, the German bishops have tried to frame the issue without reference to money and instead frame it in terms of Catholic identity”

This is their best counter argument, “Don’t lose your Catholic identity”.
As Flannery O’Connor said about the Eucharist,“If it’s just a symbol then the hell with it”.

Abraham Kuyper visited this country about 150 years ago from Holland, where his church, the Dutch Reformed, was supported by the state.  He was astounded by the religious zeal of the Americans.  He chalked it up to, among other things, the fact that there was no state support for religion; that the American churches had to feed their people with spiritual sustenance in order to survive.  He felt that state support leaves churches fat and happy, regardless of whether they are fulfilling their mission.  If the German bishops would renounce the arrangement they have with the state; if they refused any state support, they would be forced to offer to their members - and others - the true charism of the Church of Jesus.  They would not be tempted into accommodations with state policies.  And the voluntary contributions of those fed would support them, as in the U.S.

Germany needs to adopt American-style separation of church and state and altogether remove taxation from the system. Just compare the level of religious enthusiasm/attendance of European countries where church/state and taxation are intertwined with the church in America, and you’ll see religion is better off without being intertwined with the state.

@Tony:  [“Germany needs to adopt American-style separation of church and state.”]  Tony, that’s only part of what makes the United States so exceptional.  If you wish to stop the erosion of freedoms, Catholics should NOT vote for Obama.  He is influenced by all the surrogates around him —Jarrett, Holder, Axelrod, Plough and Rice.  Tyranny is just around the corner.  Soon Holder and the Justice Dept will go after Pastors for “hate speech” when they preach the Bible.  Canada already has certain laws regarding this.  Don’t think it can’t happen here.

How this is not simony is beyond me. To make reception of the sacraments dependent on payment of cash as an essential condition of providing them, is simony. To make a cash payment an essential condition of recognition as a Catholic, is to put up Christ for sale, and to make sacramental grace available only for a fee is to charge a price for what God gives freely. The only Apostle these people imitate is Judas Iscariot - he too sold Christ for cash.

My how times have changed. In the early years of the Church, the state demanded you either renounce your Faith or die. But today the Church is the enemy—saying either renounce your Faith or we’re taking your money.

Yes, I know it’s the state that is doing the stealing on behalf of the Church, but the Church certainly doesn’t appear to be opposing the system, nor is it refusing to take the stolen loot.

This may all be in accord with Canon law—and maybe all those who renounce the Faith are committing a mortal sin—but are there really so few of us who find it appalling (and wrong) for the German Church to require its members to register with the state and to pay a tax as a condition of membership and reception of the Sacraments?

How are people placed on these rolls in the first place?  Do your parents fill out the tax documents at your baptism or is this something you declare when you fill out the German equivalent of the a W-2?

Concordats work both ways, and can bite on the way out.