Church taxes and Germany
Bernard Dauenhauer has asked that this story from the NCR be posted; it concerns a court decision allowing German Catholics to refuse to pay their church tax and yet remain members of the Catholic Church. A very different system than our own!
The gist of the story: “Leaving the church in Germany starts with a visit to the local court or registry office where the applicant completes an official declaration of withdrawal before a court official. The court then sends notifications to the parish, the employer and the local registration office.
“Excommunication from the church ensues automatically and one’s baptismal certificate is endorsed to that effect.
“The German Catholic church has meted out the penalty of excommunication to 1.1 million former members from 1998 to 2007.
“In August 2007 Zapp, an emeritus professor of canon law, went to his local registry office to announce that he was leaving the Catholic church. After signing the required document, he went to the archbishop’s office and declared that he was still a Catholic.” Read the whole thing here: http://ncronline.org/news/global/german-court-upholds-church-tax-challenge
Thanks very much, Peggy. I’m just flummoxed by this whole situation. How could it have arisen?
“For decades, the Catholic church in Germany has been accustomed to dizzying wealth underpinned by tax revenues: $61 billion in from 1998 to 2007, with $6.5 billion in the year 2007 alone.”
Those concordats are indeed profitable.
The story mentions the 1933 Concordat. (Wasn’t it with Hitler?) Food for thought!
I was in Germany this summer and this matter came up. The man explaining things indicated that people who opt out of paying church taxes are not off the hook. They, as are people who aren’t formal members of the Catholic or Evangelical (Lutheran) churches are taxed to support secular charities.
I don’t know how true that is, but it made sense.
Hello Peggy (and All),
The Nazi regime came to power on January 30, 1933. A concordat between the Holy See and Germany was completed on July 20 of that year. So it looks like the answer to your question is “yes”. This story got me curious because it struck me that the 1933 concordat might still be in force. According to Wikipedia (which I have found generally quite reliable on statements of fact) the 1933 concordat is indeed still in force. I was surprised because I would have thought that the 1933 concordat would have been revised at least once since the fall of the Nazi regime in 1945, if for no other reason than the drastic changes that the German nation has witnessed since 1945 (redrawn borders, division and depopulation starting in 1945, reunification in 1990, and so on). But maybe this is a case where from the perspective of each party to the concordat, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”. (At least until now, that is.)
Hello Jimmy (and All),
“I don’t know how true that is, but it made sense.”
Thanks very much for this piece of information. I was wondering about this myself. (I confess I think this kind of taxation is related to my research.)
For me at least, knowing that a German taxpayer will be taxed to support charitable causes under any circumstances makes it all the more striking that German taxpayers have started to defect in large numbers against the Catholic Church. The article Peggy pointed us to cites the lifting of the excommunication of the Lefebvrist Bishop Richard Williamson as a cause. That strikes me as plausible on the surface but I’d need to see more evidence before I’d accept that conclusion.
Fwiw, German kids, Lutherans and Catholics, are required to take religious ed as part of their public school curriculum.
The 1933 Concordate was not revised after WWII, but there was a debate, and the Concordate was confirmed in its legal force by the Supreme Court of Germany in 1957 (that affirmed, by the way, that there is a legal continuity between the Nazi regime and the post-WWII Bundesrepublik Deutschland). This issue of the validity of the Concordates was one of the many “silences” of Vatican II, which made for the council fathers politically “impossible” to change the way bishops were (and are) chosen and appointed
Last I looked the Catholic Church and the major Protestant ones, Lutheran and Evangelical, are part of this state tax system. I believe that what are called the “Free” churches (Protestant) are not. Off and on over the past few years, I have read news stories reporting that Muslim parents and community leaders have tried to have state schools provide religious education for their children; don’t know what’s happened with that, and don’t know whether they are part of the state tax system–I doubt it.
While it’s easy to see why Church leaders are fond of this system, it has a serious downside in terms of parisioners taking responsibility for the local church.
Thanks to all of you for your helpful comments.
I remain astonished by the “excommunication” bit. Can one of these “excommunicated” people still LICITLY (from the canon law perspective) receive the last rites prior to “re-registering?” Can they receive the sacraments of penance, matrimony, eucharist licitly without re-registering? If not, what is the theological justification for such canon law?
It is clear that this is a reprehensible practice. Nevertheless, it is a european mindset if not mostly Catholic. In Germany Catholic universities operate under an agreement with the state and Rome. Likewise in Italy where ex nuns and priests are forbidden to have government jobs according to the concordat. Etc.
I would need to do some more genuine research on this to answer with any authority, but I believe the current “tax” system was also set up in the post-war rebuilding as a way to strengthen institutions (ostensibly as a bulwark against something like Nazism repeating itself, but also to show that the Germans were committed to supporting good things) and to make a kind of reparation to those churches who had suffered from the war.
But I think the system, like the earlier concordats, are also quite consonant with centuries of European history in which church and state were co-dependent in many ways. (In Germany, supporting each church was also a way of keeping religious peace.) That would not have been surprising until recent times. It is interesting that while Catholicism is not the “state religion” in ostensibly Catholic countries in Europe–unlike in say, Scandinavian countries where Protestant churches are the state churches–the Catholic Church in Italy and Spain etc receives state funding and various benefices from the state on education and the lke that make it a distinction without a difference, to many. That system is also under some pressure, especially in Spain, I belive.
In any case, I’ve always found the German/Austrian system extraordinary–I think I would be tempted to “apostatize” and then declare my faith as well! That the churches have not lost more members because of this is amazing. But the losses now are precipitous. The question is, can the old world churches suddenly convert to an American free will offering style? Heck, it doesn’t work so well for the Catholic Church here.
Moreover, the Vatican would suffer a big loss if the church tax system were abolished, as the German church has been the biggest donor to the Holy See, along with the U.S. church.
PS: BUt to Bernard’s point, the excommunication issue is more astonoshing than anything. I also would like to know if such a forced apostasy is licit under canon law.
there is a masterful theological and canonical analysis of the issue by the late Eugenio Corecco about “leaving the Church for fiscal reasons” (Dimettersi dalla Chiesa per ragioni fiscali, Apollinaris 55 (1982) 461 -502, or Austritt aus der Kirche – Sortir de l’Église,edited by L. CARLEN, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1982, 11-67]
Not sure about last rites, but I am almost certain you cannot be given a funeral Mass or buried in a Catholic cemetary!
Also, the French pay the salaries of Clergy, Catholic and Protestant. Not sure about Muslims…quite extraordinary when you begin to see the details of this and to think about the consequences. For one, the power of bishops and clergy to devise budgets and programs.
How Germans, or other nations for that matter, choose to fund their churches and charitable sector is interesting, but it hardly rises (or sinks) to the level (per B. Mazzella) of being “reprehensible”.
Words mean sometning, and I think it best to save the stronger words for more important matters.
Although it is tempting to focus on the payment of taxes as a financial question (and in our American culture one is accustomed to looking for money motives) or an organization/management question (which is also a favorite topic) but let’s not forget the Williamson debacle, which the article includes. We have scarcely begun to measure the devastating symbolic effect created by the lifting of the excommunications. The flap over the SSPX alienated numerous Catholics in an incomparable way. It was a very big deal that the German chancellor had to publicly ask the German Pope to clarify his position on the Holocaust. The German church is bleeding from wounds inflicted by this Pope. We can talk about other aspects of the situation, but this layer of the story is not to be overlooked.
F.Y.I.- http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical-councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
Rita, I believe Pope Benedict when he stated he was not aware of the SSPX Bishops position on the Holocaust. I will presume that there is a communication problem in the Vatican that may be intentional or simply due to intellectual laziness.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
Sorry, I need to get some glasses.
:-)
From the NCR article:
“For decades, the Catholic church in Germany has been accustomed to dizzying wealth underpinned by tax revenues”
Maybe I’m old-fashioned. But in my opinion the reporter should not use a phrase like “dizzying wealth” in a news story. My experience of NCR subscribers is that they are intelligent and informed members of the church who are capable of reaching well-reasoned conclusions about the German church without that kind of a leg-up from NCR’s news organization. That sort of bias in news reporting is why I am a former subscriber rather than a current subscriber to National Catholic Reporter.
“But to Bernard’s point, the excommunication issue is more astonishing than anything. I also would like to know if such a forced apostasy is licit under canon law.”
Perhaps the canonical basis for it is in Canon 222:
“§1. The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM
In other words, supporting the church isn’t just a generous act, it’s an obligation. I know some pastors here in the US who would like to excommunicate the deadbeats who consume the sacramental services of the parish without throwing a darned thing in the collection basket :-)
Most Catholics in America (under the age of 55), don’t even know that there is an obligation to support their parish church. The Precepts of the Church (6 of them) aren’t really taught in religion classes in either Catholic schools or Religious Education programs today.
I learned the Precepts as a grade school child—but looking in a comtemporary religious text for children, I see that the Precepts are located on page “lebenty leben”—way in the back
probably where no teacher, and certainly no kid looks.
Nancy, ignorance is no excuse, nor does it undo the damage. The pope has enormous resources on which to draw for information and advice. The fact that he did not call on them is culpable and has wounded the Church.
It is also a fact that his response to the outcry did not rise to the level of dealing with the real problem. I think the German people know that. His response remained on the level of superficiality, blaming other people for being too hard on him. It was a crumb. He got the heads of American Jewish organizations over to Rome for a photo op and said he deplores the Holocaust. So what? He never criticized Williamson directly. The excommunication remains lifted. What has really changed?
BTW, the pope never said he didn’t know about Williamson’s holocaust denial. It was the Vatican Secretariat of State that make that statement. Many observers find this assertion of ignorance implausible. I tend to believe it, myself, but I think it’s his business to know and that we should not wave this away as a PR glitch.
“made” not “make” – I need better glasses too!
A few years ago, we were invited to a conference in Germany organized by the local diocese (Berlin?) but inspired by a German businessman’s experience of living in the U.S. and belonging to a suburban parish (near Chicago! of course).
Returning home after many years, the contrast between his German and U.S. parish was quite striking and eye-opening, and he wanted people to analyze and talk about that.
One conclusion I drew from the meeting was that serious German Catholics, including clergy, saw the tax and finance system as having a seriously deadening effect on parish life, and yet they were flumoxed on how else parish life would be supported. I don’t think they saw the U.S. system as viable in their ecclesial and cultural context.
Yes of course, let me think; how that go exactly? Pope Benedict is German and he is traditional, and the Germans are terrible and the Traditionalists, well they are just thick and slow, old-fashioned, and on and on, and on and on – Yawn.
Pope Benedict is a fine man, and he is working with those members of the SPX society to bring them back into the church. Once he discovered the details and scope of Williamson’s errant views, he tended the matter accordingly. If one bothers look closely at the effort to bring that group back into the fold, it is notable that until they take steps to be fully in communion with Rome, those men cannot be bishops and their role in the church will be limited.
I have a feeling that thankfully, Pope Benedict knows what he is doing.
——————————————————————————-
“NICOLE WINFIELD
VATICAN CITY — Associated Press Last updated on Friday, Apr. 10, 2009 12:16AM EDT
An apology from a bishop who denied the Holocaust wasn’t good enough, the Vatican said yesterday, adding that he must repudiate his views if he wants to be a Roman Catholic clergyman.
The statement by Bishop Richard Williamson “doesn’t appear to respect the conditions” the Vatican set out for him, said Rev. Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for the Pope.”
“… Pope Benedict XVI also met with Jewish leaders at the Vatican and told them it was unacceptable for anyone – particularly a clergyman – to deny or minimize the Holocaust.
In his statement yesterday, Father Lombardi noted that Bishop Williamson’s comments were not addressed to the Pope.
Rather, Bishop Williamson issued a statement that was carried by the Zenit Catholic news agency and posted on the society’s British website and its news agency.”
“…The American Jewish Committee praised the Vatican for demanding more.
“Until he explicitly says otherwise, he remains in the camp of the Holocaust deniers,” said American Jewish Congress executive director David Harris. “He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Vatican.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/vatican-rejects-apology-in-holocaust-case/article973856/
Decades ago, I lived in Hamburg where, I believe, around 10% of the Christians were Catholic, and was always impressed with how beautiful the churches were. The Kirchensteuer paid for the maintenance and artwork commissioned for the churches among other things. Collections were taken up but the amounts offered were small. At the time, I taught in a Hamburg Gymnasium. I believe Religion was part of the curriculum, but it was Evangelisch or Lutheran. There was at least one private Catholic school in the city at the time. In southern Germany, where the around 90% of the Christians were Catholic, I suppose Catholicism is taught.
I recall how, when one Catholic parish was being totally refurbished, a neighboring Evangelisch church offered its facilities so that the local Catholics might continue attending Mass on Sundays. The choir director from a neighboring Evangelisch church played the organ at the new suburban Catholic parish I lived in some time. The latter seemed to me a lively and young parish, no doubt due to the fact that it was situated in a newly built up area and big-hearted openness of its priest.
Ken, your attempt to caricature my position is insupportable and vulgar. I’m saying nothing like what you assert in your post. Everything I’ve said is true, and by making up distortions you only discredit yourself.
Ken, you say “I have a feeling that thankfully, Pope Benedict knows what he is doing.” What is your theory then as to why 300 Germans a day are leaving the church? For no reason?
I think Bernard hit the nail on the head. I think a number of Germans will opt out, finding little credibility in leadership (despite the psuedoapologetics of the Kens of the world) but some may continue to worship as Catholics as happens here in the good old Us.
I see the excommunicated (I beleive) Fr. Bourgois is the keynote speaker at CTA this year and continues to speak out on women’s ordination.
I’m sure their members, and many other Catholics as well, don’t worry abou tthe “excomunication” notion nor the “cafeteria Ctaholic” sallies the so called apologists direct at them.
Then there’s the poor nun in Cincinati who can’t teach or do anything because she beileive swomen should be ordianed (see NCR on line today.)
All heavy handed tactics do is alienate all who think otherwise.
So we continue to have a deeply divided Church, and, I think, despite some good things from the Pontiff, lots of division rooted in Rome and propagated by its loyal system folowers.
So it goes….
Rita, F.Y.I.- http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/
As to why 300 Germans a day are leaving the Catholic Church, it seems logical to presume that they are no longer Faithful.
I would note that Benedict/Ratzinger had been dealing with the SSPX and Williamson personally for many years, even before he was put in charge of talks with them following the 1988 schism. He was well-versed in all of their writings and views, which include explicit expressions of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. I believe Benedict and the Vatican were careful to say he did not know of that specific interview by Williamson, which is a smart but of spin. To say he did not know of the wider anti-Semitic content of the Traditionlaists’ views seems beyond implausible, and, if true, would cast into doubt what everyone knows about Benedict’s intellectual abilities.
No, the French government does not pay for salaries of clergy in France, except maybe the Alsace-Lorraine region (that was part of Germany between 1870 and 1914, hence was not directly affected by the separation of church and state in 1905).
not only germans are leaving the church. Here in Italy, in the Diocese of Milano over 200 people this year chose “de-baptism” and left the Church.
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Cronaca/?id=3.0.3337061897
I notified my cathedral pastor in writing in December 2006 that I was leaving the Church of Rome because I could not support Benedict’s initiatives on various issues facing the church. I mentioned that I did not anticipate joining any other religious body and that I was not renouncing my Catholic faith.
Years ago a previous pastor told us on more than one occasion that we should not confuse the Catholic Church with the Catholic Faith. They are different.
If one believes that the church is not facilitating one’s growth in faith, should one continue to maintain his or her membership in, and financial support to, the church?
When I die, I do hope to buried in a local Catholic cemetery where my mother, a Protestant, is buried next to my father, a Catholic.
Can anybody cite a formal church policy/canon law/etc. that would prohibit my burial in a Catholic cemetery because I formally left the church (although I did not renounce my faith)?
Also, since I was baptized in a different state and my parish registration card had information about place of baptism, would my former pastor have been required to notify my baptismal parish (or its chancery) of my departure from the church? If so, would my baptismal certificate on file in the other archdiocese have been annotated to indicate my “defection” (or whatever:)?
David, if your presumption that Pope Benedict was aware of the anti Semitic views of the SSPX and was willing to overlook them, or your presumption that his not knowing would, “cast into doubt what everone knows about Pope Benedict’s intellectual abilities”, is grounded in truth, you should be able to provide us with evidence. Without that evidence, I will presume that your presumptions are not grounded in truth to begin with.
Folks, I do appreciate all the comments here, but I remain stuck with the issue of a theological justification for the excommunications. Jim, just citing a canon, a hardly explicit canon by the way, doesn’t cut it. Can it be that there is no theological justification? If there truly is none, isn’t that preposterous?
Seems quite preposterous, but preposterous has never been a suspect class in Catholicism (or many other religions and non-religions!).
Any Italian readers who can find and give us the gist of this cite from Massimo Faggioli? Perhaps it might offer a clue.
“there is a masterful theological and canonical analysis of the issue by the late Eugenio Corecco about “leaving the Church for fiscal reasons” (Dimettersi dalla Chiesa per ragioni fiscali, Apollinaris 55 (1982) 461 -502, or Austritt aus der Kirche – Sortir de l’Église,edited by L. CARLEN, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1982, 11-67].”
Or Professor Faggioli perhaps you can offer a precis.
I attended mass in the Salzburg Cathedral this summer. At the time of the collection, I was surprised to see an abundance of very small denomination coins (also called cents in Euro currency.) When I put a note in and passed it on, the woman next to me looked at it, then at me, and said in perfect accented English: “from what country are you?”
She reinforced that collections at mass are token events because of the church taxes. Only the foreigners seem to be willing to give more than a few cents to the collection.
There will be a HUGE financial shock and consequent necessary educational effort needed if the church tax is ended. I doubt that Germans and Austrians would rise to the occasion because of the overall dislike of the size of the church taxes. It would take a few generations, a lot of belt-tightening by the organization, and a chastening of the spirit of entitlement on the part of the church leadership in those 2 countries.
Bernard, I agree, there is much that seems baffling here. Especially in the light of this:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
Nancy Danielson’s link to this document from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and approved by Benedict XVI in 2006 addresses the precise problem at issue in the Zapp case.
It attempts to distinguish between signing a civic-administrative document for the purposes of achieving some civic effect and formally intending to commit apostasy, heresy or schism. It seems, according to this document’s interpretation of the matter, that it would take a lot more than signing the certificate opting out of church membership to avoid the church tax to incur excommunication.
Here it is 2009. The real wonder is why no canon lawyers challenged the “excommunication” practice before this. Seems like the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Or, perhaps the consequences of really examining the issue and re-considering the church tax look to be so enormous ( as Jimmy Mac suggests above) as to have a paralyzing effect on the clerical establishment.
Joseph,
Try to calm down; listen to yourself.
First you talk of leaving the church, and keeping your faith, all because you do not like how this Pope plans on handling something (on that you offer no further detail), and then you proceed to busy your mind with paper baptismal registration forms and with your own funeral plans.
Well.
First of all, the Church is Christ’s mystical body on earth. As such, we baptized Catholics are all members of the mystical body of Christ.
In response to your comment “Years ago a previous pastor told us…” Regardless of what a pastor said years ago, I would check and see what the Catechism of the Catholic tell us regarding this.
Finally, I have no idea what it would take to convince me I should have an opinion on papal matters; I am not the pope. I have heard it put humorously; that while we have a shortage of men wanting to be priests, we seem to have no shortage of people wanting to be pope.
I hope this helps, from CCC:
The Church—both visible and spiritual
771 – “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.”184 The Church is at the same time:
• a “society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
• the visible society and the spiritual community;
• the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches.”185
These dimensions together constitute “one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”:186
The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187
O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven’s beauty has adorned her.188
The Church—mystery of man’s union with God
772 – It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God’s plan: “to unite all things in him.”189 St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church “a great mystery.” Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn.190 Contemplating this mystery in her, Paul exclaims: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”191
773 – In the Church this communion of men with God, in the “love [that] never ends,” is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world.192 “[The Church's] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the ‘great mystery’ in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom.”193 Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as “the bride without spot or wrinkle.”194 This is why the “Marian” dimension of the Church precedes the “Petrine.”195
FWIW – I understand that Europe, by and large, does not have our tradition of separation of church and state. My instinct is that it is not good for the church to be so financially dependent on a government for its funding.
But an interesting parallel that comes to mind is Catholic schools in the US. Catholic schools receive relatively little by way of government funding or services. It’s not immediately clear that they should be entitled to government funding. Yet Catholic schools contribute significantly to educating our children, a task which it is univerally agreed the government has a legitimate interest in supporting. It would be a hardship on many local governments and mmunities if Catholic schools ceased to operate in the local community. Finally, the quality of student and citizen “produced” by Catholic schools is of tremendous benefit to the community. These are all good reasons for more government support of Catholic schools.
So I am of a mixed mind on this. If there is an underlying principle that governs whether or not a government should fund a religion, it seems that it is not a simple one to discover.
Oh Canada! Weigh in on this. Doesn’t the Canadian government support all schools, religious and public? But I don’t think there is a church tax. Anyone?
In France the government recognizes the contribution of Catholic schools to the education of our children, and the schools who follow the public school curriculum get government support, so that parents only have to pay tuition to cover the extra costs (the costs of religious education, the cost of having a lower children-to-faculty ratio, etc.)
Susan Gannon, once again I’m in your debt for the information you provide. The document you cite makes sense. So does your comment about the left hand and the right hand.
Many thanks.
Nancy, my presumption that Benedict knew more about the SSPX is grounded in my knowledge of him and his career, and it would be out of character completely for him to have been so deeply involved in every aspect of the theology and practices and rhetoric of the SSPX without his having known of their views on Jews and Judaism and the Holocaust. That seems a fair presumption, and I truly would worry if he did not know about their views. I just don’t think he considered them as central to the wider concerns of ecclesiology and such that kept them separated. (Nor, in fact, has he shown much concern over the sensibilities of the Jewish community, so it was no surprise that he didn’t do so in this case.) Indeed–to be truly provocative–I don’t see whay Williamson’s views on the historicity would exlcude him from the reconciliation the pope offered the others. Crackpot ideas about history are not grounds for excommunication, I’m pretty sure.
Again, if you have any evidence that Benedict did not know about the views of the SSPX, I’d like to see that, too.
Ken, the late pontiff “greased the skids” for my departure, and JPII “opened the gate.”
It was an easy decision.
And, contrary to your view, the church and the faith are two different realities/entities. Indeed, we have Catholics who, like me, not only left the Church of Rome but, unlike me, have formed or joined Catholic communities not in communion with Rome.
Contrary to CCC 771, Jesus did not establish the “hierarchical organs” and “visible organization” of the institutional church. Let’s not confuse “the official line” in ecclesiology with actual history.
And, I am “calm.” In fact, I’ve been much calmer since departing the institution. Perhaps we’ll get a pope someday who will be able to undo all the crap that Benedict and predecessor have dropped on the church.
Until then, Ken, I remain Catholic by faith, not by affiliation.
Corrrection: “…and Benedict ‘opened the gate.’”
Also, I do not presume to tell other Catholics how they should respond to Ratzinger’s policies and pronouncements. For me, no doubt for others, the decision to leave was based on disgust with this papacy. I leave it to other disaffected Catholics to decide on their own how to respond to Benedict’s efforts to turn the church backwards: Leave altogether OR Stay but don’t contribute financially OR Stay and continue to contribute money.
Perhaps if Rome gets back on the Vatican II track, I can advise Ken to “calm down” and “listen to [him]self.”
No, that just wouldn’t be somehow right.
There is another way to remain Catholic (of course, this is not acceptable to hierarchy, theocons, uber orthodox, or ultramontanists):
I no longer consider myself to be Roman Catholic or American Catholic. I am a Most Holy Redeemer Catholic. My parish is the locus and focus of my Catholicism. All other, while it might be enervating at times, disenheartening at times, angering at times, delightful at times …. this is all secondary.
The downside is that, if MHR disappears, so does my church. But I have been away before and I survived. I can probably find an alternate MHR — if I try. Time will tell on that.
Meanwhile, bishops, cardinals and popes can pretty much say what they want. Unless my parish is immediately affected, I really don’t care what they say, do or want.
My cafeterian has a limited but very nourishing menu. All of the calories that I reject are not good for me anyway.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic does seem to be doing best at the MHRs of this world.
Jimmy Mac, is there any way to check whether in Germany “people who opt out of paying church taxes are not off the hook”? The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax seems to indicate otherwise.
And the discussion on http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t34464.html is pretty convincing evidence, to me, that people who opt out are exempt from that tax.