Catholics and marriage licenses

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlackFriar said:
Did Jesus pay taxes?
Click to expand...
We know that the Holy Family was in Bethlehem for the birth (the miraculous birth!) out of obedience to an Imperial decree calling for a census.

We also must infer that he obeyed civil laws because of the simple fact that the leaders brought false charges against him before Pilate. If he disregarded civil law, there would have been no need for false charges, they could have levied legitimate ones against him. The fact that the had nothing with which to actually accuse him, stands as near-proof that he obeyed the laws. They certainly put great effort into looking for crimes.
 
tafan2 said:
I doubt if we know this for sure. He certainly had a home, it was in Capernuum (Mark 2:1). He likely had a trade at some point before he started his public ministry. I don’t know the details of all of the Roman taxes, but I suppose that some of them applied to him.
Click to expand...
The Romans did not have a tax system as we know it.

Each year, companies would bid on the contract to collect taxes from the provinces (Romans were not taxed, not at first, only the foreign provinces). Whatever company bid the highest tax revenue was awarded the contract for that year.

The tax companies then collected taxes in whatever ways they found convenient. They had market taxes (every merchant pays a fee); they had city-gate taxes (anyone bringing-in goods to sell had to pay a fee). They had real estate taxes, where landowners paid a tax based on the value of the property. They had border taxes where merchants entering the province had to pay a certain amount or a percentage of their goods’ value. They could tax ships coming or going. They could have toll roads or bridges. They had all kinds of taxes.

The Roman government did not care “how” the tax collectors got the money. They only cared that they met their goal for the year; and anything left over was their profit. They cared only if the tax collectors were too harsh and caused trouble or rebellion. Naturally, they didn’t like that.

That’s why tax collectors get such a harsh treatment in the Gospels. As long as they paid what the government wanted, they were permitted to keep whatever was surplus—that was the whole point.
 
To
“BlackFriar said:
Perhaps you better quote the tax criteria you speak of so we can see for ourselves what it is you are attempting to prove
Click to expand...

Little bit tricky, as the basics of roman tax system were taught in my history study, but I think you will understand that I don´t store every paper at home. I focused later on late antiquity and kept theearly romans beside 🙂 But for your research: check out Duncan-Jones, Richard: Money and government in the Roman empire, Cambridge 1994. Also Couzin, Robert: A Modern Look at the Roman Imperial “Jewish Tax”, Canadian Tax Journal 2017.
Basically, Tax was based on land property (tributum soli ) .In the provinces - in the roman city area there were large tax free areas. Inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatium)was not for all free citizen, this happend later under the reign of caracalla… Ordinary taxes for everyone weren´t that common before the late roman emperors as the empire had to face much higher military costs.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The tax companies then collected taxes in whatever ways they found convenient. They had market taxes (every merchant pays a fee); they had city-gate taxes (anyone bringing-in goods to sell had to pay a fee). They had real estate taxes, where landowners paid a tax based on the value of the property. They had border taxes where merchants entering the province had to pay a certain amount or a percentage of their goods’ value. They could tax ships coming or going. They could have toll roads or bridges. They had all kinds of taxes.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks alot, I missed the bridge and merchand taxes!!
 
tafan2 said:
BTW, you do not have to have a US citizenship, or even be a legal resident, to obtain a marriage license. Someone travelling here on a visa can do so.
If the marriage license is being refused, something very strange is going on. Perhaps not even having a legal birth certificate for a child born?

And I have to notice this quote from the OP about the friend’s family
“you can only imagine the many benefits to having done that.” pertaining to them supposedly removing them the government’s jurisdiction. The OP wonders why people are responding negatively about them. Well, they are enjoying many, many benefits the government provides: roads/infrastructure, property rights, education, etc. And they are not willing to cooperate in regards to these benefits. And the OP thinks we should only imagine how great that is. Sorry, not buying into it at all.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking it’s because the foreigners – that can marry here in the US-- have a birth certificate – issued by their country of birth (therefore citizens of that country).

Now with this family – after they renounced US citizenship – did not record the birth of children with any county/state/federal agency here in the US.

Or if the parents moved to another country – and did not record the birth(s) in that country and/or there is some legal issue with how that country handles the birth of children of non-citizens.
 
Last edited:
Why wouldnt Jesus pay poll tax and land tax for his family home at Capernaum?
Why do you want me to do the research…you are the one apparently saying that Jesus and his followers didnt pay secular taxes.
Even Paul affirms that Christians need to do so and respect the right of secular powers to administer such things.
 
Last edited:
stinkcat_14 said:
If someone got married and then immediately divorced, but lived together, would the Church have an issue with that? On the one level, the Church would consider them to be validly married. On the other hand, there could be fraud involved.
Click to expand...
My reply is assuming they are committing fraud, and not simply living together for the sake of children…

This is a straw man. The Sacrament of Matrimony is permanent. Nothing can dissolve a sacramental marriage.

The Church would not be telling them “oh, what you are doing is totally fine.” Any priest who knows of this would surely be say to his parishioners, “what in the world do you think you are doing?!?!? You are committing fraud.”

Some one doing something like this would NOT be able to receive communion because they are living in a state of grave sin because they would be purposefully defrauding the govt (which is a stealing and gravely sinful).
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Why wouldnt Jesus pay poll tax and land tax for his family home at Capernaum?

Why do you want me to do the research…you are the one apparently denying that Jesus and his followers didnt pay secular taxes.

Even Paul affirms that Christians need to do so and respect the right of secular powers to administer such things.
Click to expand...
I didn´t said it was impossibble for him, I said the possibility is high that he hadn´t need to pay. Tax for land depends on wealth and size of the land. We don´t know if other relatives paid for the “family land”. I didn´t spoke of his followers (I am almost sure paulus paid, for example, as he had another status in society).
Why I want you to check this out? Because I can´t have every single footnote of every single ancient document on my hand if I discuss with you. No historian can.
And this has nothing to do with the duty of paying taxes - If you would read my posts you would notice that I posted more than once that a christian must respect the law of the state/ruler.
 
I think you are way short of convincing that Jesus was not responsible for paying taxes in his adult lifetime. Poll tax and land tax for a start.

All this is moot in any case as he clearly respected the authority of the state which is the topic and the point of my tax observations.
 
BlackFriar said:
I think you are way short of convincing that Jesus was not responsible for paying taxes in his adult lifetime. Poll tax and land tax for a start.
Click to expand...
Well, at least we won´t solve this until we find tax documents of Jesus 🙂
 
They are in the same dusty filing cabinet as the folder on area 51 🙂.
 
I’ve heard so many people over the years use the “give unto Cesar” quote as an example of Christ telling us to pay taxes, it’s nauseating!

It’s funny that you rarely hear anyone using the time Our Lord drove the money changers from the temple and accusing them of turning the house of God into a den of thieves; as an example of removing the government from our churches. Matt. 21 12-17

For whatever reason; ( many here suggest it is for convenience sake) the Church has opened the doors and welcomed the government in and so doing has allowed it to redefine Marriage and made it illegal for a priest to perform a Catholic sacrament without a license. Just as the temple in the gospels opened its doors to the money changers…so to has our Church.

With all that is going on and the absolute corruption taking place in the government concerning marriage; maybe the time has come for Catholics to turn out the money changers and turn our churches back into a house of God.
 
I’m no scholar, but I’m pretty sure the point of the money changers in temple was about driving out people making a profit off of religious devotion, not government. I don’t think money changers really have much to do with the government; where is the connection?
 
I believe you have set your mind to being absolutely correct with your “belief” you can’t back down. I have no idea what your friend’s legal situation is but if the state refused to issue a marriage license, then the Catholic Church will not allow the marriage in the Church. It really doesn’t matter what you “think” is right, it is what it is.

As I see it, your friend has two choices, get her legal situation fixed so she can marry in the Church or get married somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly believe the money changers back then had nothing to do with government???
 
It’s my understanding that the money changers exchanged secular currency for temple currency so that the people could pay their temple tax. Other merchants were selling (purportedly) unblemished produce and live stock so the people could offer sacrifices.

So you’d have merchants who were there with the approval of the religious authorities. These were not secular government authorities.
 
Maybe not but the money was not their own. The government had its hand in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top